What if Israel Annexes the West Bank and Lets Palestinians Vote

[Spartacactcus]

When you study the history of the entire Middle East between all the Arab countries and then post WWII Balkans and post WWII Pakistan/India relations and learn the hypocrisy of the UN’s anti-Jew stance, get back to us.

Is that person a reincarnation? Or a sock?

Grammar is good; facts out of context.
I think it’s someone new.

Notice the spelling of honour.

Poor little cactus...

He's playing us.

Nope he's off to bed, it's cracking on here but be sure , like Arny said , " I'll be back "..........tomorrow all being well

 

[Frankeneinstein]

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.

A 2 state solution is the best idea, so as a plan B you are on to something here but it is still not the best solution IMO...this really is not my field here but is there still the issue of the "destruction of Israel" concerning the Palestinians to deal with? or have they recognized Israels right to exist?

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

Let's see what the facts say and they will shed light on who is " ignorant "

The peninsula was governed as part of Egypt under the Mamluk Sultanate of Egypt from 1260 until 1517, when the Ottoman Sultan, Selim the Grim, defeated the Egyptians at the Battles of Marj Dabiq and al-Raydaniyya, and incorporated Egypt into the Ottoman Empire. From then until 1906, Sinai was administered by the Ottoman provincial government of the Pashalik of Egypt, even following the establishment of the Muhammad Ali Dynasty's rule over the rest of Egypt in 1805.

Sinai Peninsula - Wikipedia


Thus your claim that it was " never part of Egypt in modern times until the British attached it to their Egyptian colony" clearly shows a damning ignorance of how the Sinai has been governed as part of Egypt for at least the last 800 years. If that's your idea of a " dubious claim " WRT it's status as part of Egypt you might have a dictionary all of your own , who knows.

On Jordan

The area "given back" is east of the river Jordan. It is East of the river Jordan and West of the river Yarmouk. That's why its occupation was challenged by Jordan in the aftermath of 1947-49

Although the 1949 Israel-Jordan armistice agreement did not explicitly mention this region, the map attached to the agreement showed the armistice line cutting off a corner of Jordan between the two rivers (the present day Island of Peace).[16] When Israel sent military forces into this corner in August 1950, Jordan filed a complaint with the United Nations Security Council.[17][18

Naharayim - Wikipedia

So not only were you completely wrong about the Sinai you apparently have no idea where the Jordan river is , not knowing that the land in question was east of the river , not west of the river as you claimed.

Two in , two down already. I have done enough to show already that it is yourself that has shown the true ignorance and is trying to project that ignorance onto others along with false claims of bigotry.

In other words I have humoured you more than I think you deserve already.

If you really have " toomuchtime" I suggest you start spending it on researching the subject instead of showing your ignorance of it whilst claiming the factually accurate comments of others are based on ignorance and/or bigotry because it just highlights your own

Not that it is relevant to the discussion, but you are wrong on both counts. While the same Ottoman governor ruled both Egypt and Sinai, they were administered as separate entities. That is why when Egypt became a British colony in 1882, Sinai continued to be ruled by the Ottoman empire. It was not until 1906 that Egypt and Sinai were made into one country by the British in order to better protect the Canal. Rules made by foreign imperialists, whether Turkish or British can never supercede the judgements of the people living in the region, therefore Egypt's claim to Sinai is at best dubious.

In the Israel-Jordan peace treaty, Israel ceded ownership of land west of the river to Jordan and in return Jordan agreed to lease it back to Israel for twenty five years. Jordan had no legitimate claim to the land and the Israeli farmers who have been working the land for the last twenty five years are enraged that they are being kicked off of it, but Israel's desire for peace was so great that it gave up this land anyway in return for peace.

The point is that while you claim the Jews are always scheming to get more land, in all of these cases Israel is giving away land it was capable of holding on to. It makes no difference if you think the land Israel traded for peace rightfully belonged to Egypt or Jordan since neither country was capable of wresting control of it from Israel. Israel could have held on to Sinai for as long as it wanted to and when it gave it to Egypt in return for peace, it traded a land area nearly three time the area of all of Israel, showing that your claim the Jews are always scheming to get more land has no foundation in fact.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

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.

I'm sure OL doesn't need anyone to talk for her here so I will just address the above as I see it

I have given a lot of facts and information that supports the views I hold and you chose to dismiss it as antisemitism. Then you claim others get " up close and personal ". You calling someone a bigot musn't count as being up close and personal I take it ?

WE all have biases and we are all not truly/perfectly objective on any given subject, it's a human thing we all suffer from but you are doing precisely what you accuse others of doing.

Asking you what information is supporting/influencing your opinions is legitimate behaviour in a discussion, that you seem to see this as " arguing on your terms " seems really odd to me.

You don't have to reply if it's so damaging ,no worries, just try to resist the urge to call people bigots if you don't want a negative response. Common sense really

When you study the history of the entire Middle East between all the Arab countries and then post WWII Balkans and post WWII Pakistan/India relations and learn the hypocrisy of the UN’s anti-Jew stance, get back to us.

Is that person a reincarnation? Or a sock?

Grammar is good; facts out of context.
I think it’s someone new.

Notice the spelling of honour.

good catch.

Are you thinking Pakistani or 5th form school boy?

in any case, this thread is all about seeking the destruction of Israel though demographics, so that is all that really matters.

 

[Mindful]

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.

A 2 state solution is the best idea, so as a plan B you are on to something here but it is still not the best solution IMO...this really is not my field here but is there still the issue of the "destruction of Israel" concerning the Palestinians to deal with? or have they recognized Israels right to exist?

I don't know if they modified their Declaration of Principles.

 

[Mindful]

I'm sure OL doesn't need anyone to talk for her here so I will just address the above as I see it

I have given a lot of facts and information that supports the views I hold and you chose to dismiss it as antisemitism. Then you claim others get " up close and personal ". You calling someone a bigot musn't count as being up close and personal I take it ?

WE all have biases and we are all not truly/perfectly objective on any given subject, it's a human thing we all suffer from but you are doing precisely what you accuse others of doing.

Asking you what information is supporting/influencing your opinions is legitimate behaviour in a discussion, that you seem to see this as " arguing on your terms " seems really odd to me.

You don't have to reply if it's so damaging ,no worries, just try to resist the urge to call people bigots if you don't want a negative response. Common sense really

When you study the history of the entire Middle East between all the Arab countries and then post WWII Balkans and post WWII Pakistan/India relations and learn the hypocrisy of the UN’s anti-Jew stance, get back to us.

Is that person a reincarnation? Or a sock?

Grammar is good; facts out of context.
I think it’s someone new.

Notice the spelling of honour.

good catch.

Are you thinking Pakistani or 5th form school boy?

in any case, this thread is all about seeking the destruction of Israel though demographics, so that is all that really matters.

Might be an arsehole.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

why do we discuss historical borders why not deal in the now?

 

[Indeependent]

why do we discuss historical borders why not deal in the now?

No, Jew haters only discuss Israel’s historical borders.
I say start another war because Israel could use Lebanon and Syria as a welcome mat for aliyah.

 

[Hollie]

The source documents are clear. Perhaps you can be convinced to read a single sentence:

It is also recognised that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.

The Palestinians were not involved in the drawing up of these lines and the above clearly states that a peaceful resolution of the " Palestinian question " remains the ultimate goal.

They served as a de facto border with all Arab attempts at annexation being rejected along with the Israeli annexation attempts. I don't see the above as a cut and dry case that assures the " peaceful " resolution of the I/P conflict

The above CLEARLY states that the Green Line exists only for military considerations. It can not be used in any way to prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party.

Black. And. White. It can not be used to prejudice the rights, claims and positions of Israel. Period. Full Stop.

And ask yourself WHY the Arab Palestinians were not involved in the Peace Treaty between Israel and Jordan. Nor why Arab Palestinians were not differentiated or mentioned at all.

And, let's talk about "Israeli annexation". You claim equivalence between Jordan crossing its own established international borders and taking land which does not belong to it AND Israeli annexation. This implies that Israel had an international boundary PRIOR to the 1949 Armistice and that it was attempting to cross that international border and take land which does not belong to it. So, where was Israel's border prior to the 1949 Armistice Agreement? And what agreement or treaty provided the legal parameters for that border?

So, where was Israel's border prior to the 1949 Armistice Agreement? And what agreement or treaty provided the legal parameters for that border?

The never answered question.

This is where everybody starts dancing.

Go on then. Tell us.

Both questions. There were none.

Of course there were. You just don’t understand.

 

[Mindful]

why do we discuss historical borders why not deal in the now?

No, Jew haters only discuss Israel’s historical borders.
I say start another war because Israel could use Lebanon and Syria as a welcome mat for aliyah.

The intense focus on Israel is out of all proportion.

Is anything going on in Sudan these days?

 

[Indeependent]

why do we discuss historical borders why not deal in the now?

No, Jew haters only discuss Israel’s historical borders.
I say start another war because Israel could use Lebanon and Syria as a welcome mat for aliyah.

The intense focus on Israel is out of all proportion.

Is anything going on in Sudan these days?

There’s a revolution going on within the nations of the African continent almost every day.
But not a peep from the Jew haters.

 

[Shusha]

Obviously the ongoing denial of the entire population of the OPTs , currently totalling nearly 5 million people, their right to self determination. A right denied to all of them every day for over half a century

LOL. Nope. Self-determination has been on the table for a hundred years. As a matter of fact, you might be surprised to hear this, but YET ANOTHER framework for self-determination was put in front of them just, why, yesterday. They refuse to read it. The only people denying Arab Palestinians EVEN MORE self-determination is Arab Palestinians.

The ongoing denial of thousands of people the right to return

There are a very small number of people who may still have a right to return, amongst a sea of people who do not have that right. That return is on a case-by-case basis and is conditional on the requirement to live in peace.

and their descendents living in squalor all over the ME

People live in squalor all over the world. Not Israel's responsibility and not a violation on the part of Israel. Of course, it is an egregious violation on the part of Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Palestine. No Arab under Israel's sovereignty or control is living in conditions which violate their human rights, btw. As a matter of fact, Arabs in Israel have a better quality of life than any other Arabs ... anywhere. So this is bullshit.

Restriction of movement of millions of people every day in Gaza and the WB is a mass human rights violation.

Restriction of movement between one State and another State (or similar self-governed political entity) is NORMAL. Not a violation.

Denying people the right to fair judicial systems is a mass human rights violation affecting thousands of Palestinians.

Um, the Palestinians of the OCCUPIED TERRITORIES? You do realize if you claim that the Palestinians are occupied, that Israel is required by law not to apply Israeli law to the occupied citizens, right? If they did that, it would be an application of sovereignty. So, um. Either Israel is sovereign over those territories, or Israel is compelled by law to use a different legal system. Oh. Another not-a-violation.

Masses of people spending months or years in " administrative detention " read detention without trial , a violation of due process

All perfectly legal in occupations, when people are suspected of committing or planning to commit violence. see above.

The torture over years of Palestinian detainees including children at the hands of Israeli military/prison personnel

There is no evidence of this. Propaganda.

Extrajudicial executions of suspects over many years and the raft of innocent people killed along with them

Elor Azaria excepted to prove the rule, LEOs facing violent, murderous criminals are well within the law to respond as appropriate in lethal and fast-moving situations where harm to themselves, or others is immanent. Even if you suggest that those LEOs may sometimes be in error -- this is NOT a violation of human rights, let alone "millions".

The people of Gaza cannot leave or enter Gaza without Israeli say so, that's 1.8 million people every day being denied ther HR to leave and enter their territory.

A ridiculous and intentional misinterpretation of international law. Citizens have a right to leave their country (as in they can not be prevented from exiting) but they do NOT have a right to enter another country without the permission of the country they wish to enter. This is the STANDARD. Thus the government is prohibited from preventing Gazans from leaving their country but Israel and Egypt are well within their rights in law to restrict entry into their own countries. So, no, again not a violation.

The massive disparity in planning permission given to Israelis over Palestinians in Palestinian land is also a mass violation. Destruction of Palestinian homes and driving them out of area C

No Arab Palestinians are being driven out of Area C. Outright lie. You mean the planning permission of Israel over Israeli citizens as opposed to non-citizens in territory it legal controls? Yep, its different. Because, treaties. You mean the demolition of buildings built without permits? Yep. Permits are a thing. None of these a violation of human rights. BUT, having said that, I'm going to give you this one. There are about 90,000 Arab Palestinians living in Area C who don't have access to building permits the way their Israeli counterparts do. They should be incorporated into Israel. But, here's the problem: Would it be a violation of their human rights to force them to become Israeli citizens and be subject to Israeli law?

The deprivations on economic and social aspects of life with the building of the annexation wall which is built 85% of the time in Palestinian territory.

The security wall is a direct response to belligerent actions on the part of the Arab Palestinians against the citizens and sovereignty of Israel. No one has a "human right" to murder people. And its all built on Israeli land.



You did a great job of demonstrating the double standard which Israel is held to. Not a great job on proving "millions of daily human rights violations". Just a bunch of sound bytes made from parroting "things you've heard" but are too tedious to research.

 

[flacaltenn]

Both sides were demanding pre-conditions. Trump unilaterally screwed the Palestinians: with Jerusalem, closing their consulate, cutting all aid. They were also excluded from the negotiation process.

We have always said it needs to be settled with both sides. Now suddenly, no?

And yet, he offered the Palestinians a FULLY recognized capitol in E. Jerusalem.. AND total access to the Al Aqsa mosque in support of the Jordanian requirements that they've always demanded..

What "negotiations"?? This plan announcement has included talks with MULTIPLE countries...

Should we treat the Ukraine Russia conflict in this manner? Just pointing it because normally both sides are in on the deal.

Perhaps we should.. But NOT unilaterally. And we don't KNOW the extent of the back table talks on this plan yet or WHO was consulted, but it was not done in a vacuum...

As far as the aid cuts, Palestinians in SYRIA right now need that aid MORE than the West Bank.. AND -- most of it was targeted to Gaza.. And it's not in our interest really to support a regime we're blockading at the same time.. Let the UN use our massive dues portion to make up the difference and cut lobster from their menu...

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Don't get your innuendo here.. Snarky or not.. What do you mean "ONLY sovereign Egyptian territory".. What OTHER territory were you hoping the victors would give back?? The Gaza STRIP??? Egypt -- LIKE Jordan wanted to wash their of the Palestinians.. I doubt they just FORGOT to ask for Gaza back...

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.

The PA was the ULTIMATE and fleeting bright side of Pali governance. Regardless of Oslo, they were on the road to getting AUTONOMOUS CONTROL of substantial parts of the Pali population.. Starting with the COMPLETE -- no strings -- return of Gaza to them.. And then all that crashed..

I think I addressed where the MAIN source of water is for that whole area.. Clue it's just barely in Israel and NOT in the West Bank or Gaza... So both Israeli and Pali persons building there will HAVE to IMPORT it from Israel.. And pay for infrastructure or share costs...

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

Hamas was not truely a POLITICAL operation before there was something to have power over.. That "nugget" was the rights to Gaza.. And Gaza was "their peeps"... They BECAME political when they had something to fight over with Fatah... That election was REALLY the fault of a US Administration PUSHING the PA to accelerate elections at a time when Palis were just LEARNING to pay attention.. Never should have PUSHED them to vote because of election time HERE in USA.... And NO -- you can't make peace with ONE team, and risk having your worst nightmare to contend with a year later... STABILITY is part of leadership and reliable representation.. Sometimes you DONT MAKE the deal if you feel your partner on the other side is in danger of losing their AUTHORITY to negotiate soon... It was kinda a surprise to a LOT of folks.. Including probably the Israelis who were "making nice" with Hamas when they were a social aid organization there in Gaza.

 

[flacaltenn]

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

Cut it out.. Does THEIR Declaration on Human Rights over-ride our law or Constitution? What wars did they EVER successfully win or defuse with resolutions? THey are a 3rd party to disputes.,.. At BEST -- a mediator and a poll of world diplomatic opinion ..

And MOST of the resolutions you are referring to are SO old they don't represent the current political alignment of either Israel or the Palestinians...

 

[Coyote]

Both sides were demanding pre-conditions. Trump unilaterally screwed the Palestinians: with Jerusalem, closing their consulate, cutting all aid. They were also excluded from the negotiation process.

We have always said it needs to be settled with both sides. Now suddenly, no?

And yet, he offered the Palestinians a FULLY recognized capitol in E. Jerusalem.. AND total access to the Al Aqsa mosque in support of the Jordanian requirements that they've always demanded..

What "negotiations"?? This plan announcement has included talks with MULTIPLE countries...

Should we treat the Ukraine Russia conflict in this manner? Just pointing it because normally both sides are in on the deal.

Perhaps we should.. But NOT unilaterally. And we don't KNOW the extent of the back table talks on this plan yet or WHO was consulted, but it was not done in a vacuum...

As far as the aid cuts, Palestinians in SYRIA right now need that aid MORE than the West Bank.. AND -- most of it was targeted to Gaza.. And it's not in our interest really to support a regime we're blockading at the same time.. Let the UN use our massive dues portion to make up the difference and cut lobster from their menu...

I'm moving over here - seems a better spot to discuss the Trump plan

Trump Deal - details, reactions and development on the ground

 

[flacaltenn]

Obviously the ongoing denial of the entire population of the OPTs , currently totalling nearly 5 million people, their right to self determination. A right denied to all of them every day for over half a century

The ongoing denial of thousands of people the right to return and their descendents living in squalor all over the ME

Restriction of movement of millions of people every day in Gaza and the WB is a mass human rights violation.

They don't want Israeli rights and passports.. So they remain occupied... As they were (semantically if not legally) under Jordan or for that matter the Ottoman Empire or Britain...

How about we cut this down to a couple fundamental questions that YOU really haven't offered any light on..

Let's make it just two.. The first is a softball pitch you can hit out of the park for your participation trophy.. THe second, although multiple choice and seemingly easy is gonna be rough for you...

Q1 --- Who is the responsible and ENDURING negotiator for Team Israel in making deals with the Palestinians??

Q2 -- Who is the responsible and ENDURING negotiator for Team Pali and speaks to Israel?

A. Your highly over-rated United Nations
B. The Arab League
C. Mammoud Abbas and team.. (YAY TEAM)
D. Donald Trump
E. None of the above
F. Hamas
G. Fatah
H. The ghost of Yassir Araffat.

Time's up.. Simple quiz...

The only thing those 2 questions have in common is the wonky failure of democratic institutions to make more than 1/2 of the populace happy with an election result.. The other half is at best --- left feeling miserable and abused for the term of office; Or at WORST -- actually develop symptoms of mental derangement.

ARABS know this.. And they PREFER their representation be HIGHLY WEIGHTED at a local tribal, sectarian, level...

 

[Mindful]

And it's not as if the jihad against the Jews hadn't been going on for 1,400 years.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

why do we discuss historical borders why not deal in the now?

That's a question Tinmore has been asked repeatedly. He's still living in 1948.

 

[José]

THE OLD WILL DIE AND THE YOUNG WILL FORGET

​

Tinmore lives in 1948 because the palestinian people still lives in 1948.

Tinmore lives in 48 because Mr. Ben Gurion was only 50% correct.

The old did die but the young didn't forget.