Palestinians: Settlement Expansion Means 1 State

[Poll_Blind]

Source: ABC News

The Palestinians will ask the U.N. Security Council to call for an Israeli settlement freeze, President Mahmoud Abbas and his advisers decided Tuesday, as part of an escalating showdown over Israel's new plans to build thousands more homes on war-won land in and around Jerusalem.

--snip--

The Palestinians say E-1 and Givat Hamatos are particularly problematic because they would cut off east Jerusalem, the intended Palestinian capital, from the rest of the West Bank.

--snip--

"Don't talk about peace, don't talk about a two-state solution ... talk about a one-state reality between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean," Erekat said, referring to the land that the international community hopes will one day accommodate both Israel and a Palestinian state.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague sounded a similar warning Tuesday, telling Britain's parliament that Israel's building plans would make a Palestinian state alongside Israel "almost inconceivable."

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/israel-advance-east-jerusalem-building-plans-17872893#.UL8BymdN-S4

---

Much more at the link!

Okay so let's say Israel gets everything it wants, builds the 3,000 housing units in East Jerusalem, annexes huge swaths of Palestinian territory. What, exactly, are the Israelis planning to do with all the Palestinians who happen to exist in parts of Palestine which Israel decides to call Israel?

A great question posed by William Pfaff a few hours ago from the Chicago Tribune:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/sns-201212041800--tms--wpfafftr--v-a20121204-20121204,0,4026805.column
[div class="excerpt" style="border: 1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom: none; border-radius: 0.3846em 0.3846em 0em 0em; box-shadow: 2px 2px 6px #bfbfbf;"]What exacly would Israel like to do with its Palestinian population?[div class="excerpt" style="border: 1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top: none; border-radius: 0em 0em 0.3846em 0.3846em; background-color: #f4f4f4; box-shadow: 2px 2px 6px #bfbfbf;"]But to return to the original question, which few seem willing to pose: When Israel wins its campaign to create a single, unchallenged Jewish state on all of the land given by the U.N. in 1948 to make parallel Jewish and Arab homelands (a plan which the Arab states fought and lost), what happens to the Palestinian people left in the country?

There will not be quite as many of them as there currently are, if they persist in their sporadic and unsuccessful outbursts of resistance, revenge or retaliation, since it is Israel that, like the imperialist powers of the past, has "the Maxim gun, and they have not" - taking the form of F-16s, cluster bombs and nuclear weapons, if necessary. However, the Palestinian birthrate is much higher than the overall rate of Israel's Jewish population.

What do Prime Minister Netanyahu and his colleagues intend to do with the Palestinians? For the present, the latter are penned up in walled or barricaded enclosures on what they consider to be their own land, but the whole purpose of Israel's national policy is to take that land away from them.

More at the link, this is just a snippet which directly addresses the question. And that's one hell of a question, really. If you noticed, I bolded the fact that the Palestinian birthrate is much higher than the overall Jewish birthrate.

The "problem" Netanyahu faces by granting citizenship to the Palestinians goes like this. It's very simple: Israel defines itself as a "Jewish and Democratic State". Both Jews and Arabs are citizens of Israel and both groups are given equal voting rights and, of course, equal rights to have babies. So...What happens if the Arabs have enough babies that they one day become the majority?

It's a question there is no comfortable answer to.

Almost thirty years ago, Ted Koppel hosted a landmark debate between two prominent Israeli figures: Ehud Olmert, who would wind up becoming the Prime Minister of Israel in 2006, and Rabbi Meir Kahane, an emigre from the United States and founder of the popular Kach political party, which was later outlawed by Israel as racist.

The whole 8-minute segment is worth watching, but you only need to see the first 18 seconds to hear the question no Israeli politician can answer, nor wants to. Astoundingly, Netanyahu's Israeli government is courting that situation- but what is his solution to the inevitable situation that follows?

Olmert's response at the time was a reasonably safe "Oh, it will never happen." Kahane's response at the time was ethnic cleansing- which is why his party was banned in Israel and why his "Kach" and related organizations are listed on the FTO (Foreign Terror Organization) list by the United States, right along with al-Qa’ida and HAMAS.

Israel's Netanyahu government is turning a problem...into a potential nightmare. Not just for the Palestinians, but for the very nature of Israel as both a Jewish and Democratic state.

PB

[on point]

1. Yes, a one state, secular solution. Call it Palestine. Problem solved.

[Behind the Aegis]

2. So, eliminate Israel? Facinating.

Why not one state called "Israel?"

[Poll_Blind]

13. I think the most likely short-term "solution" is a division of land a la what happened in...

...South Africa in the 70's and 80's: The "bantustanification" of those lands in which conquered Palestinians reside. If you look at a map of Israel/Palestine and especially how the West Bank has been chopped up, it looks very much like the Bantustans formed within South Africa at that time:


PB

[Xithras]

34. Bantustans have another name more familiar to Americans: Reservations.

And Israel is following the same script that America and South Africa followed. Forcibly relocate the native population into areas the new nation doesn't want to settle, grant them a bit of autonomy so that the government can disclaim responsibility for their plight, deny them citizenship and the right to vote, and otherwise permanently exclude them from the greater society.

Honestly, the only thing I'm suprised about is that nobody has formally proposed it yet. It's pretty clear that Israel has been slowly building toward this goal for quite some time though. A two state solution really isn't tenable without the expulsion of settlers from the West Bank, and there are now so many of them that it would be political suicide for the Israeli leadership to propose it.

The only remaining options are the wholesale expulsion of the Palestinian population (which would spark a major regional war), the confinement of the Palestinians to reservations/bantustans, or the integration of both populations into a single state. Options 1 & 3 are unlikely for political reasons, so what's left?

[Ken Burch]

108. uh "final solution"...really?

Of all the phrases you could have used there, you went with THAT one?

[Chan790]

200. I noted that too.

It's so thinly disguised antisemitism that it's not even dog-whistle.

[Scootaloo]

4. Why not call it Late To Dinner?

Why not sell the naming rights to google and put it up to the internet? Why not just call it "Overthere Yonder?"

Most people who miss a forest do so because the trees are in the way. Some people are distracted by the pine needles, I guess.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. 'Southern Levant'?

Which is, apparently, what archaeologists say when they want to avoid arguments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Levant

[Ken Burch]

113. or "Debbie".

(makes as much sense as anything else).

[on point]

8. Because Israel is a religious state that was the mistake in the first place

[Behind the Aegis]

38. And a Palestinian state won't be?

Why not support the creation of two states, rather than destroying one?

[Ken Burch]

70. The ONLY way to do that is to oppose ALL further settlement expansion.

It's either the settlements OR peace...there's no way to have both. And there's no possible reason for any decent human being to think that expanding the settlements is MORE IMPORTANT than peace.

We already know that settlement expansion can't possibly make Israel any more secure.

BTW...if you're for two states now, would you agree that everybody who demonized Jesse Jackson for supporting a two-state solution in the 1980's now owes the man an apology?

[Behind the Aegis]

74. I oppose all settlements in the West Bank.

The only exception is if the Palestinians want a land swap.

Your "btw" is meaningless and irrelevant. They are responsible for their own behavior.

[Ken Burch]

79. Thank you at least for opposing all settlements.

Nobody anywhere should be violent-at the same time, nobody in a situation like this should knowingly do anything to increase violent tensions.

[Recursion]

154. Since Palestinians are not one religion, clearly it won't be

Palestinians are Muslim and Christian and, in the case of the Mizrahim, Jewish.

[Behind the Aegis]

159. That's an absurd assuption.

Persians come in all religious persuasions, and yet...The Islamic Republic of Iran, is infact a religious state.

[Recursion]

161. If only there were a multi-religious Arab state, perhaps just north of Israel

that I could pull in as a relevant example. You know, a state with religious tolerance among Christians, Muslims, and Druze, and even explicit power sharing in the government. And if only such a state were right on the northern border of Israel and Palestine. That would be a great example for me, if only such a state existed...

[Behind the Aegis]

163. One already exists in Jewish form, it just seems to be offensive to so many.

I wonder why?

But nice dodge...I knew I smelt a red herring.

[oberliner]

162. One of the most ill-informed posts I've seen here in a long time

Islamic states do not have citizens who are all one religion.

In fact, they pride themselves (in theory) on their treatment of religious minorities.

[Ken Burch]

124. Actually, it wasn't so much a religious as an ethnic/cultural state.

A lot of the early Zionists were Jewish athiests.

The issue here is with forms of nationalism, not different religions.

[geek tragedy]

17. Well, when the majority of residents are not Jews, probably not going to be a Jewish state.

Israel is committing suicide through obstinacy.

[former9thward]

21. So I assume you favor dissolution of all the Islamic states.

Just to be consistent. Or are they different?

[geek tragedy]

27. I favor democracy and self-determination.

Hey, if a majority of people in the new state want to call it Israel, that's their right.

But it ain't gonna be likely. Israel will have to choose between having a democratic state and a Jewish one.

[Ken Burch]

81. There shouldn't be any religious-based states.

It does need to be said, though, that the U.S. isn't subsudizing the existence of any of the Islamic republics, nor do we have a policy of vetoing virtually ALL critical resolutions anyone might introduce about them in the UN Security Council, so there are some problems with your analogy.

[former9thward]

104. Ahh no.

There have been no critical resolutions against Islamic republics in the UN and the U.S. has not vetoed any. The U.S. does give extensive foreign aid to Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia, Yemen among others.

[Ken Burch]

106. Not the point.

If such resolutions were introduced(and sometimes, they should be, IMHO), the U.S. would NEVER have a policy of automatically vetoing them, as the U.S. has had(or at least seemed to have had)an automatic policy of vetoing ANY critical resolutions about Israel...even ones that there was never a justification for vetoing, such as resolutions on the settlements(since those settlements were all illegal).

[former9thward]

148. We'll let you try reading that post again.

This time do it in English. You may have a better shot of reading this time.

[former9thward]

166. Sorry for the snark.

I've done the same thing many times.

[Ash_F]

22. Eliminate America!(1960) Eliminate South Africa!(1980)

I swear the stuff that gets posted daily on this supposedly progressive board.

[geek tragedy]

28. South Africa didn't get eliminated. But it did have regime change.

It will have to give the right to vote to all Arabs. Or jump with both feet into the apartheid category.

[Ash_F]

30. Indeed but the right wingers loved to use that argument back then.

"You are trying to destroy OUR country!!!"

...and here we are.

[coalition_unwilling]

189. If current demographic trends persist, by 2050 Israel will have a majority Arab population. (Right

now about 20% of Israel's population are Arab.) Then Israel will truly be an apartheid state, barring some Nelson Mandela\FW DeKlerck-type rapprochement.

[Behind the Aegis]

37. And yet, that is excatly what the poster to whom I responded believes that. Do you?

[geek tragedy]

45. Israel destroyed itself.

It chose the dream of Greater Israel over the most basic principles of human rights, thus permanently destroying any chance of future legitimacy.

[Behind the Aegis]

51. Kool-aid.

[geek tragedy]

53. It is a matter of physical reality that the Israelis setttlements are too entwined

and embedded within the West Bank to ever be evacuated--even if Israel's government weren't dominated by pro-settler extremists. And note that the settlers and ultra-orthodox are breeding much faster than the non-settlers. So demographics will cause Israel to become even more fanatically committed to the settlements.

That is precisely the "reality on the ground" what Israel's settlement policy was intended to create.

Well, they created it. Israel has unilaterally made an independent Palestinian state physically impossible.

So, there will always be only one state in the area encompassing historic Palestine. And Jews will be a minority within it within a generation or two.

[Behind the Aegis]

54. No, it isn't.

You, like others who are advocating one-state, fail to see past your own noses. But, it is likely your last sentence that sums the desire for the one-state. Only Israel is too blame in your opinion, which backs up my assertion, "kool-aid." Israel has fucked up a number of things, and will likely continue to do so, so has the Palestinian government. I find it hypocritical that those who want "Greater Israel" are racists, but those who want Israel eliminated aren't.

[geek tragedy]

55. I would have preferred a two-state solution.

But, that ain't happening.

Netanyahu is going to win a crushing victory next month. Crushing.

After doing everything he could to destroy peace prospects.
After trying to hijack the US elections.
After treating a strong supporter in President Obama like a house servant and a child.
After doing more to undermine US/Israel relations than any man in history.
After announcing a settlement plan that would forever doom any chance of a two-state solution as a formal matter.

For all of that, the Israeli public is going to reward he and his coalition of rightwing troglodytes in the Knesset with a sweeping victory.

That is where Israel is. They have contempt for the one friend and ally they have left.

They cannot be reasoned with.

[Behind the Aegis]

57. More kool-aid, so since I don't have a coupon. I am not buying this anymore.

[geek tragedy]

61. No, you're drinking the "the country dominated by pro-settler poltiical parties

and that gleefully builds illegal settlements will of course agree to dismantle those settlements' Kool-Aid.

[Ash_F]

47. My concern is representation, equality and the pursuit of liberty.

Anyone, anywhere in the world should be concerned about those things.

But I am not an Israeli citizen nor a Palestinian, so it is really not my concern what the people living under Israel's purview elect to call it today or tomorrow, just that everyone living under its purview have adequate representation. I have no opinion on what it should be called, but changing a country's name will not 'eliminate' it. That's fundie hand wringing and obfuscation.

[Behind the Aegis]

52. Fine...within Israel.

It isn't just the name change that is the destruction of Israel, but I have a feeling you already know this. So, you don't support a two-state solution and you have the nerve to call those that do "hand-wringing right-wingers." Whatever.

[geek tragedy]

56. Two-state solution is a fantasy. Netanyahu has always held contempt for the idea,

and the Israeli public agrees with him.

Israelis want to eat their cake and eat it too--they claim they want a two-state solution, but their polices for the past 50 years have been in the exact opposite direction--towards colonizing the land that would be a Palestinian state.

Believe their actions, not their press releases and myth-making.

[Ash_F]

58. I do support a two state solution, for now. See my posts to Hack89 in this thread for elaboration.

You are using words like elimination and destruction. To say that is hyperbole would be an understatement.

If you are implying an incorporation of Palestinians in the Israeli political process, through full or partial citizenship or otherwise, will 'destroy' it then I am sorry, that is completely wrong. And yes, that argument has been used in the past in other countries by the right to deny people the same.

If you care to, elaborate on exactly what you think destruction means in this context.

[Behind the Aegis]

59. That's good to hear. I will look at your other posts.

No, it isn't hyperbole. If the very nature of the state is changed (a homeland for Jews), including the name, it is the elimination/destruction of the said state. Those who are Israelis should be allowed all rights and equality; I have never believed otherwise. The Palestinians want their own national home, why can't the Jews have one? It doesn't mean those who aren't Jewish/Palestinian shouldn't be entitled to equal rights in their respective countries.

[azurnoir]

67. so why was recognition of Israel and it's right to exist good enough in 1993 but not now

IOW why was the ante upped?

eta

LETTER FROM YASSER ARAFAT TO PRIME MINISTER RABIN:

September 9, 1993

Yitzhak Rabin

Prime Minister of Israel

Mr. Prime Minister,

The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era in the history of the Middle East. In firm conviction thereof, I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments:

The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/recogn.html

[Behind the Aegis]

75. Which has nothing to do with my post.

[azurnoir]

77. so your post had nothing to do with Israel being the Jewish State? n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

80. A Jewish homeland, the nature of Israel.

It had nothing to do with what you posted and "up the ante." Why do you engage in these passive-aggressive "key-jinnlging, look over there" type posts?

ETA: Why don't you answer the question I asked? Why should Palestinians have a national homeland, but not Jews? This has NOTHING to do with negotions, it has to do with the comments by fellow DU'ers in THIS thread!

[azurnoir]

83. ah but I never said the Jews can not have a national homeland

I simply showed you that the Palestinians had already recognized Israel something that apparently upsets you for some reason as to upping the ante recognizing Israel as the Jewish State has been demanded of the Palestinians or did you not know that?

[Behind the Aegis]

84. Then it was pointless as that was not the topic of discussion.

Glad that was cleared up. And I wasn't upset by that, but then you already knew this which is why you used the misdirection. I was talking about DU'ERS who are calling for Israel to be erased as the Jewish homeland. Or is that something you also agree with? So far, there are 4...are 5?

[azurnoir]

88. I asked you question that it seems you are unwilling answer

but would rather make ridiculous accusation about why is that?

[Behind the Aegis]

90. It has nothing to do with DU'ers which is why your absurd strawman was ignored.

[azurnoir]

94. lol so now you throw in another crimson Clupeidae?

I guess you do not want to answer I'll accept that as an answer in itself TTFN

[Ken Burch]

69. How about "Israel-Palestine"? That way, everybody's represented?

That said...would you agree that the Israeli CAN'T keep expanding the settlements and STILL claim to support a two-state solution? That settlement expansion is sabotaging any possible chances of ending the war and is therefore completely indefensible?

[Behind the Aegis]

78. How about two separate states? Why is that so offensive?

Would you agree that constant attacks on Israel, including calling for its demise are harmful to the process? That attacks against Israelis in Israel and around the world are indefensible and sabotage the peace effort? If you answer yes to both, then you have your answers.

[Ken Burch]

85. It's not offensive to me...but most Palestinians AREN'T trying to get rid of Israel any more.

And in any case, they'd never be able to even if they wanted to do that.

The problem is, the settlements do nothing to prevent any of the things you listed above, and can only make them more likely.

The only way to have a real two-state solution is to accept that a Palestinian state shouldn't be made progressively smaller and should not have to live totally at Israel's mercy(insisting on that is the problem with the demand that A Palestinian state be completely demilitarized). There will be a long time after the creation of a Palestinian state during which West Bank revanchists will hold considerable sway in Israeli politics and may get the balance of power in the Knesset...thus, a Palestinian state will need to be able to protect itself against any attempts to re-establish the settlements or retake the West Bank. Plus, it will need to be able to have complete control over its own water supply(no country should ever have the power to restrict another country's access to water...that's simply human decency).

BOTH sides have legitimate security issues. Both sides have the right to be safe and to never be under the thumb of the other. That's the only way to make a real two-state solution work...it can't work if the Palestinian state is simply to be a statelet-on-sufferance, whose sovereignty can be yanked away at a moment's notice.

[Behind the Aegis]

89. Then perhaps you should also point your attention at those calling for Israel's removal.

I am a two-state supporter. I am for all citizens of both countries having equal rights under the law. I am for both states having the right to self-determination without outside interference. We may disagree with certain aspects of how to achieve these goals, but when you jump into a conversation with someone who is asking why people wasn't Israel gone and you don't address those people it makes me wonder.

[Ken Burch]

93. The subthread with you two was just a discussion of the name of a country.

That poster wasn't calling for a Judenrein Palestine, nor were they necessarily advocating that any and all protections for Jewish culture and religion be removed in a single state. So it's not as simple as saying they wanted Israel "gone". That's why I didn't get into a confrontation with that other poster.

Besides, there have been several suggestions in this group recently that the PA be dissolved. Since that dissolution would leave Palestinians with nothing at all and no hope at all, isn't it JUST as offensive as calling for Israel's dissolution?

I don't think a one-state solution is workable at this point(perhaps not ever). But what you don't seem to be seeing is that Netanyahu and his party of death are doing is sabotaging the two-state solution.

A two-state solution depends, among other things, on whatever Palestinian leadership signs onto it being able to make the argument that they didn't "lose". Netanyahu, on the other hand, seems obsessed with being able to declare "victory", on imposing terms that would humiliate ANY Palestinian leader that agreed to them and possibly cause that leader's overthrow, which would THEN just start the whole damn war all over again. This is why things like this settlement expansion and even things like the IDF destruction of those solar panels the foreign NGO's built(just because the NGO's decided to give up waiting for the construction approval they were never, ever going to get before starting construction)are so dangerous.

Israel's leaders KNOW what makes things worse. They KNOW what causes violent responses. Therefore, they just shouldn't DO those things. How hard is that? It's not weakness to avoid goading people into violent responses.

[Behind the Aegis]

95. No, it wasn't. Don't insult me.

I know why you didn't confront him. It isn't all about Israel and you should know that by now, yet it isn't reflected in your remarks..at all!

ETA:

on point (770 posts)

1. Yes, a one state, secular solution. Call it Palestine. Problem solved.

2. So, eliminate Israel? Facinating.

Why not one state called "Israel?"

on point (770 posts)

8. Because Israel is a religious state that was the mistake in the first place

You tell me, HONESTLY, how this is just about a "name change" and NOT the removal of Israel from the world stage!

[Ken Burch]

99. Why DIDN'T I confront him, then?

I support Israel's right to exist(within the pre-1967 lines, which is more than enough). It's just that, while I oppose a single-state solution, I don't see those who advocate it as intrinsically evil. In North America and Europe, they are basically idealists(most of whom backed a two-state solution at one point)who became convinced that the Israeli government was never gong to be fair to Palestinians on the matter. Support for a single-state solution is the child of frustration and despair, and some of those who support that were at one time some of the most passionate defenders of the creation of Israel.

The way to counteract that feelings that have increased support for a single-state is to push the Israeli government to stop acting in the way it has acted for years now...or, in the short run, to work for the defeat of the current governing coalition there, because it is that coalition that has done more to nurture the cause of antizionism than any other in Israeli history, with its arrogance and its bloody-minded fixation on "winning the war", whether doing so is of any real value any longer.

And I oppose antisemitism as I oppose all forms of bigotry(including anti-Arabism and anti-Muslimism, both of which are equally toxic).

There is no dark intent in my posts, Aegis. There never has been.

[Behind the Aegis]

100. On point does not.

[Ken Burch]

101. UH...what?

I have no idea what that phrase means.

[Behind the Aegis]

102. Are you sure you were following this sub-thread? On point is the one to whom I asked the question!

[Ken Burch]

105. Oh, sorry.

Thanks for clarifying that.

"On Point" is a fairly unexpected posting name, and it sounded like you were just using some sort of ususually obscure phrase. My bad.

[Recursion]

155. Because the settlements have made that impossible

You can't have two states when one state has stolen the land of the second.

[Behind the Aegis]

160. According to you and the propaganda you are reading and peddling.

So, can you be put in the "get rid of Israel" column with the others?

[Recursion]

168. No, South Africa wasn't "gotten rid of" either

But, again, it will probably feel like that to some of the most privileged.

[Behind the Aegis]

170. But, it is still a false analogy. Too bad you can't see it. Carry on.

[Recursion]

172. What a stunning refutation! "It's a false analogy". If you have an argument, make it.

Here is my argument for the similarity. In both Israel and South Africa, a European colonial population controlled tracts of territory in which native people lived, and were met with armed resistance to that control which targeted civilians. Furthermore, in both cases there were longstanding historical ethnic claims for the land (the Boers and the Mizrahim, respectively) that were leveraged to be deliberately confused with the much more questionable claims of a much larger number of European immigrants.

If you think the analogy is invalid, say why.

[Behind the Aegis]

173. Israel and South Africa are countries.

The problems in SA were WITHIN the country, with THEIR citizens, NOT the people of another nation-to-be. The others are engaged in a war against Israel, the citizens of SA were not trying to destroy SA and replace it, they were trying to achieve EQUAL rights as SOUTH AFRICANS, not another nation. It is a false analogy that is very popular because of the hate for apartheid, allows for hate of Israel and allows for "ONLY ONE SIDE IS TOO BLAME,' something those who use that analogy throughly enjoy.

[Recursion]

174. You are factually wrong on that: the bantustans were by protocol separate countries

That's what the "-stan" means. But they were strips of land under military control of South Africa with nominally autonomous governments that nobody else recognized. Sound familiar (at least until last week)?

The important similarity is that in the name of security (and, in both cases, after actual terrorist attacks against civilians), the European colonial country exercises control without claiming sovereignty (with its resulting responsibilities and franchise) over the territories in which natives live.

[cpwm17]

175. Your claim that the Palestinians are trying to destroy Israel

is laughable. Israel is destroying Palestine. That is the issue.



It is Apartheid in the illegally occupied territories. Just because it's not legal Israeli territory, doesn't make the Palestinians' lives any better. It just makes Israel's behavior worse, especially considering the Palestinians are also victims of years of ethnic cleansing. In practice, it's all one state.

[oberliner]

179. Why does the first map say "Jewish land"?

Why is the second map of a "plan" that never actually happened?

Why is the the West Bank and Gaza labelled "Palestinian land" in the third map when those areas were actually occupied by Jordan and Egypt respectively at that time?

These maps are ridiculous.

[Recursion]

184. Because there was no "Israel" in 1946 or 1947?

Just a guess

[oberliner]

185. Exactly

So what the hell is Jewish land vs. Palestinian land? Weren't the Jewish people living there considered Palestinian at that point?

[Recursion]

190. It was British land at that point (nt)

[oberliner]

191. Yeah

Can we agree at least that the maps are a little misleading?

[Recursion]

192. I'd agree the first panel is somewhat misleading

In that it was never anticipated that Israel's borders would be solely land that was owned by Jewish people in 1946. The point is made equally well without the first panel, though: Israel wants to wipe Palestine off of the map.

[cpwm17]

194. These maps make their point

The first map shows what land Jews lived on or owned, compared to what the Palestinians lived on or owned.

The second map shows the obviously illegal and illegitimate division suggested by the UN General Assembly in 1947. Israel and the pre-Israel Zionists tried to take all of Palestine, which is how we got map three.

There's a huge difference to what Israel is doing to the Palestinians and what Jordan did when they controlled parts of Palestine. Israel is taking ownership of the land for Jews to the exclusion of the Palestinians, which is how we got map four.

These maps are accurate.

[oberliner]

196. They do indeed

Nothing that you've written here is true.

Almost none of the land indicated as Palestinian in the first map was owned or lived on by Palestinians.

The second map was not "obviously illegal" and it was suggested by the UN General Assembly.
Regardless, it was rejected by the Arab side and never came to be.

"Israel and the pre-Israel Zionists" did not try to take all of Palestine. In fact, one could argue that various Arab countries tried to take all of Palestine and drive any Jews living there out. They were unsuccessful in this endeavor.

Conveniently ignored in these maps is the fact that the West Bank and Gaza were occupied by Jordan and Egypt respectively. There are also hundreds of thousands of Palestinians living in Israel currently who are treated much better than how the Palestinians were treated by Jordan.

It's amazing that people could possibly believe anything you are typing here.

[cpwm17]

198. You can't rightfully create a country for one group on somebody else's land

The UN General Assembly had no such authority, and the Palestinians didn't agree to it. Most of the Jews were recent arrivals, and they owned or occupied very little of the land. The Palestinians have lived there for hundreds or thousands of years.

The pre-Israel Zionists started expelling the Palestinians in 1947. They stole more than the UN suggestion, stopped by the Arab neighbors from taking more. Israel is still, to this day, expelling Palestinians off of their land.

Israel and the pre-Israel Zionists started the war by expelling the native Arabs and declaring a country on land that mostly didn't belong to them. Both are aggressive acts of war. The Arab neighbors entered the fray after the large stream of refugees flooded their countries.

I find it so bizarre that anyone in this day and age find what the Zionist have done, or are doing, as moral or legitimate. You act like the Palestinians committed such a crime by not agreeing with having their homeland seized by another group. Jordan didn't systematically expel or imprison the natives and replace them with their own preferred population.

You can try to change the subject to the minority of Palestinians (and their kids and grand kids) that were not ethnically cleansed, and that still live in Israel. But we're talking about the Palestinians that are living under Apartheid, and are being expelled, in the illegally occupied territories. Israel's treatment of Palestinians in Israel itself is of no consequence to them.

[oberliner]

201. Alrighty

I really don't think you have an accurate handle on the historical events involved during this period. I am sure you probably feel the same way about me. This looks to be one of those situations where neither one of us is going to convince the other of anything, so I am happy to just leave it there.

[Recursion]

164. No more than South Africa was eliminated.

Though I'm sure losing colonial privilege feels like a national death to some.

[Behind the Aegis]

165. False anaology. But, I am betting you already knew this, given where your other posts are.

"On point" was very clear he is not talking about a change in government. Enough games: Do you support the creation of ONE STATE called Palestine?

[Recursion]

167. Support? No. But there *will* be one state, Israel has seen to that

I could give a flying f*** what it's named.

Hamas is basically Umkhonto we Sizwe at this point (you did know that Mandela was a terrorist early in his career, right?). We've seen this narrative before, in a lot of countries, including the USA.

[Behind the Aegis]

169. Surprising. But, no, your "analysis" is nothing but run-of-the-mill propaganda.

So, you continue using those apartheid memes, it announces your intentions.

[Recursion]

171. It announces the similarity of a European colonial population controlling a native majority, sure

And using the armed resistance of the oppressed as an excuse to continue.

Interestingly enough, Apartheid was inaugurated in 1948...

[oberliner]

181. European?

Where do you get your information from?

Edit to Add: That is not a rhetorical question; I am really curious.

[Recursion]

183. I'm not sure what you're asking. The Ashkenazim are Europeans

There are 4 million or so European Jewish people living in Israel, vs. 2 million Mizrahi Jewish Palestinians.

[oberliner]

186. Jewish Palestinians?

What does that mean?

[Recursion]

187. Jewish people whose families have lived in Palestine for millenia

The Palestinian Mizrahim. Many Ashkenazim are themselves descended from people who left Palestine millenia ago, but then again there were entire Cossack clans who converted to Judaism in the middle ages with no historical ties to Palestine. And the Ashkenazim who are descended from Palestinians lived in the Pale longer than they lived in Israel, ironically enough...

[oberliner]

188. Most of the Mizrahim are from neighboring Arab countries

They moved to Israel when it was founded (or shortly thereafter). They would call themselves Israelis, not Jewish Palestinians.

[sellitman]

6. Problem solved?

Sure, why not give America back to the Indians?

Problem solved.

[Ash_F]

29. Native Americans can at least vote for their congressman today.

Too bad it took so long for them to get any representation that there are almost none left to represent.

A one state solution is about representation, not property, and that is what the current discussion is about. Once people have at least some kind of representation, then they realistically put forward discussions about equal rights(such as the right to buy property) and pursuit of liberty to the government that they are subject to. That is the difference between a citizen and a subject.

[azurnoir]

68. so are Native American not allowed to live in White settlements are Native Americans not US citizens

or not allowed any other rights that all US citizens enjoy?

[sellitman]

120. Arabs have more rights in Israel than in other Arab Nations.

If you want to cast stones that's fair but look around and see how poorly their own Arab brethren have treated them.

Pretty poorly.

[azurnoir]

121. why is it that Israelli Arabs are always compared to Arabs in other countries?

Tell us do you normally compare American Black people to Black people in other countries like say Rwanda or Sudan to prove how good they have it here?

[sellitman]

130. Because

Folks here are always quick to castigate Israel but almost never the Arab Countries surrounding Israel.

Where is their sense of outrage?

[cpwm17]

131. That's a good question

In the US, Israel's attention is primarily driven by the pro-Israel side. Israel receives more support from the US than any other country. It's rather bizarre how much support the US gives Israel, especially considering how much Israel often acts against our own interests. Israel's critics have little power.

Liberals tend to dislike the powerful abusing the weak. Liberals tend to notice more what their own country is doing wrong rather than what some other country that they have no power or say over is doing. The pro-Israel crowd has made Israel an American issue.

US support for Israel is both religious and secular. Israel was created on land that three different religions consider holy, for the benefit of only one religious group, and to the detriment of the others.

Israel supporters are an important element in the US's pro-war stance in the ME. Israel supporters in the US are about the only driving force behind our economic terrorism against the 75 million people of Iran.

Israel is constantly on an aggressive pro-war stance. Israel has for many decades systematically severely discriminated against the native people for their religion. The powerful are destroying the lives of the weak, forcing millions to remain stateless. For similar reasons, South Africa received a lot of attention several decades ago.

[sellitman]

134. I understand your post

I don't disagree with everything you said but I wonder how you would react if you were surrounded by Countries and people who don't believe you should exist and have pledged to remove you from the region? From people who when given the Gaza back decided their best course of action is to use it to aim missiles at your civilian population.

My point is There is enough blame on both ends of the conflict yet that fact is rarely discussed here.

[cpwm17]

142. History has show that it is Israel that doesn't recognize the Palestinians' right to exist

and the Gaza Strip is an imprisoned population mostly inhabited by Palestinians, and their kids and grand-kids, that were expelled from what is now Israel. They weren't given anything. They have no control over their lives.

Attempts by Israel's Arab neighbors to make any peace deals have failed. Israel prefers the status quo, where they continue to seize more Palestinian land to create their Greater Israel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Peace_Initiative

[azurnoir]

135. again do you compare American Blacks standard of living to White America or Blacks in African

countries? Why is it that the standard of living for Israeli non-Jewish Arabs is compared to Arabs outside of Israel rather than that of their fellow countrymen who are Jewish?

[hack89]

11. Why do you think Hamas will support a secular state? tn

[Ash_F]

26. What do you support?

"I won't deal because you won't deal" is not a constructive way of discussing social policy. We need to be "looking forward" as the president says.

Long term social changes will take a long time for many people to come to terms with. 50 years later we still have people who are bitter about the civil rights movement here in the States but we have been, and still are, making progress.

[hack89]

33. I support a two state solution with the dismantling of the settlements. nt

[Ash_F]

40. I think that is a reasonable short term solution.

I don't want to see anyone's lives uprooted, be they Jewish or Muslim, but currently a one state solution is not realistic. So something similar to what happened in South Africa(minus forced relocation and revokement of citizenship), in giving Blacks at least partial sovereignty, is at least a pragmatic step to follow the recent one of UN recognition. That is all the Palestinian delegation to the UN is going for at this time. Ultimately, incorporation should be the goal considering that there are Arabs on both sides and there are administrative problems with running two separate governments with such interwoven borders. Perhaps an intermediate phase of cooperative government should happen between a one and two state solution. It took 30 years with South Africa but I think it could happen faster in Israel.


I think Israel's allies should continue to put pressure on them to cooperate in good faith as they have been(except the US). The US should change its direction soon or go down in history as being the last nation on the wrong side of the situation, again, a la South Africa.

[azurnoir]

41. so lets look at the logistics of that

Israel can really move and absorb 350,000 people back to Israel within the Greenline? somehow that sounds rather pie in the sky to me and before you say they did it Gaza there were less than 8,000 settlers in Gaza and some of them wound up in the West Bank

[hack89]

43. They say they are willing to try

time will tell.

I have no illusions that any solution will be easy.

[azurnoir]

44. who says they're to try Israeli's ? rrrright that;s why they keep expanding the settlements

not to mention some of the settlement leaders themselves say that their mission is to make a Palestinian state impossible

[hack89]

48. Time will tell

there are no good solutions as far as I can see. If I was a betting man I would say the situation will continue like the present for the foreseeable future with Israel walling off the Palestinians and accepting a constant low level of violence.

Until the Palestinians become a genuine threat to the survival of Israel nothing will change and it will be very hard the Palestinians to gain that sort of power.

Perhaps the next generation will be more moderate on both sides. Like I said, time will tell.

[azurnoir]

49. "all it takes is one generation" (settler) Girls at War

How a group of teenage believers could reshape the Israeli-Palestinian struggle

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/77378/girls-at-war

[hack89]

50. You highlight the difficulty of finding a solution.

Do you have any doubt they have counterparts on the Palestinian side?

[azurnoir]

60. " any doubt they have counterparts on the Palestinian side?"

and your point being? we're talking about Israeli colonists living in what most of the world recognizes as Palestine, but your comment seems to imply that the Palestinians have as little right to be there as their conquerors colonists do

[hack89]

62. My point is that there are extremists on both sides

that are not in the mode for conciliatory actions. Until they are marginalized any solution will be hard.

[azurnoir]

64. Palestinians wanting to live anywhere in the West Bank which is now recognized as Palestine

is no more extremist than Israeli;s wanting to live anywhere in Israel but it seems a different standard is applied to Palestinians for some reason

[hack89]

65. Gaza is part of Palestine

and there are extremist there that enjoy shooting rockets at Israel. They also believe Israel has no right to exist.

I am not saying one side is more extreme than the other - I am saying that extremist on both sides will make any solution difficult.

[azurnoir]

66. ah I was waiting for you pull that one out Gaza

what comments such as yours confirm for me is that Israel's pull out and subsequent treatment of Gaza including Olmert and Bush2's insistence on the 2006 Parliamentary election that gave Hamas the majority in the Palestinian Parliament the ones that Abbas warned both Bush and Olmert would turn out that way and begged them postpone were proceeded with just for that reason

As of right now the Palestinian population is sadly under 2 different governments and useing one to deny the other is cynical and I am being polite

[hack89]

73. So are you saying that Palestine should be absolved of the responsiblities

of statehood because Hamas and Fatah can't agree? They are either a nation or they are not. If they are a nation then they are responsible for everything that happens on their territory.

Sound like you are looking for a way to excuse Hamas rocket firing as irrelevant.

Only a fool would think that Israel is going to give an inch to the Palestinian "nation" while taking rockets from Gaza.

[azurnoir]

82. so you are saying that the PLO/PA is responsible for what Hamas a different goverment does?

well that makes a very cynical kind of sense and it is about the only excue left to maintain the growing status quo in Israel's favor thanks for confirming that

[hack89]

91. So Palestine is not really a country?

or is it a country undergoing civil war? Shouldn't we all wait until there is a single government that can make binding agreements?

[azurnoir]

92. as of right now the country of Palestine is under 2 different governments

and as far as waiting too late what is done is done

[hack89]

96. So Israel is to negotiate separately with each part of Palestine?

do you see how that might be a problem? How does a three state solution make things easier?

[azurnoir]

98. at this point Israel refuses to speak with Hamas

now there is a possibility of unity between the PLO and Hamas but that has as of yet to materialize and when/if it does you've given us a preview of the ProIsrael sets talking points/excuses for maintaining occupation and siege. thank you mission accomplished

[hack89]

107. I didn't realize the great power I hold.

but seriously - you expect me to believe that Fatah actually wants to negotiate?

This is all a big Kabuki dance as the three groups jockey for power. There is no real impetus for anyone to negotiate right now. Things will settle down one way or the other, a winner will appear in the Palestinian power struggle and then hopefully some constructive talks can start.

[azurnoir]

111. Abbas has said he's willing to negotiate n/t

[hack89]

116. But will Hamas agree to any deal brokered by Abbas?

I think we know the answer to that question. They want him dead. They want an Islamic state.

Do you think Abbas will turn the other way so that Israel can solve.their mutual Hamas problem? I am sure there are some interesting back channel conversations.

[azurnoir]

122. Really it does not matter at this point in time n/t

[hack89]

128. Nothing can be done until the Hamas problem is solved

Last edited Thu Dec 6, 2012, 06:27 PM - Edit history (1)

and the Palestinian "nation" is unified with a single government that can actually govern.

[azurnoir]

136. Tell that to the UN

but it may 'comfort' you to know Israel is threatening to resume assassinations and cancel the cease fire in Gaza if Palestinian leaders enter through Egypt

[hack89]

137. That makes it even more imperative

this UN stunt was a risky move by Abbas to try to outflank Israel and garner world support. If all it does is expose just how powerless and impotent Abbas is then nothing good will come of it. Hamas wants Abbas to fail so I suspect that is exactly what will happen.

[geek tragedy]

46. A majority of Knesset seats are held by pro-settler parties.

It is far too late to try to dismantle them.

The settlement debate is really over at this point. The Palestinian areas and the Jewish areas are too intertwined to ever be separated again.

The settlements are a form of inoperable cancer.

[Mosby]

149. with land swaps only around 50K settlers will need to relocate

And that's only because the Palestinians want ethnic/cultural purity, no Jews allowed in Palestine. Is that something you support? Further is that a progressive value?

[azurnoir]

152. so 300,000 Israelis and their IDF protectors will remain in the West Bank?

ya sounds like a deal to me
now I have a bridge it's a really really good deal

[Mosby]

156. all those settlers live a mile or two from the green line

they will be part of the land swaps.

[azurnoir]

157. again 300,000 Israeli's and their IDF protectors will remain in a Palestinian state

or as a defensive wall around Jerusalem still not much of a deal IMO x

[DonCoquixote]

63. Problem is

when one state is in power, mission one is to eliminate everyone else. I despise Zionists, but I have no illusions about Arabs not wanting to oppress the others either. Secular governments are a western value, not a Mid east one.

[DonCoquixote]

193. if he is one, he is a fool

And Zionism is what is being excused to kill Arabs, all in the name of an independent homeland for Jews, which of course winds up being a miserable place to raise a child, because the maintenance of that homeland depends on the sort of killing that ensure that said child will grow up having to kill and be killed, regardless of what side of Jerusalem they were from.

[DonCoquixote]

199. in other words

You cannot deny the facts, such as the fact that a jewish girl and arab voy born in New York, Toronto or London would not have to worry about being enemies, but only in the so called "holy Land." Nice attempt to use Yuck to sound cute.

[cali]

129. except none of the parties will accept it.

[John2]

5. I think

now that the Palestinians can use the legal system of the U.N,, they should get a order against Netanyahu as a criminal if he goes through with it and Israel as an outlaw, roque state. I call this ethnic cleansing now. They can ask for sanctions against Israel, just like that ask for other rogue states. That means all funding should be kept from Israel and their economy reduced to shambles like other roque states.

This would essentially teach Netanyahu and his Government that they can't do anything they want. Now why would I be so harsh on our Ally Israel? To teach Netanyahu a lesson. This is not your former Ally, the apartheid government of South Africa. Just ask them what happened when they didn't comply.

[TahitiNut]

7. I see no problem if Israeli settlers live under a Palestinian government.

Call them "immigrants"! When people from other countries come to the U.S. and buy a place to live, they are subject to the governance of the U.S. and the state & local government where they live. We do NOT cede sovereignty to their nation of origin!!

The abomination is in the Israeli treatment of any land upon which their emigrants 'settle' as Israeli territory! What kind of fuckwit insanity condones such peremptory arrogance??

[Maineman]

9. I thought Jews were God's special people so they can do whatever the hell they want to.

Why should the US automatically and blindly support a religion based state?

US policies are so screwed up and hypocritical, it is pathetic. I cannot even imagine what 90% of the rest of the world think of us. Fools? Idiots? I sure am glad we have a few sane people who stand up for reason and common sense, and humanity.

Jews, Christians, Sunni, Shiite, Catholics, Protestants, Hindu, Fundamentalist this, Fundamentalist that, etc., etc., etc. I know what. Let's kill, quarantine, or abuse everyone who is not a devout member of our own religion.

[former9thward]

23. So you believe the U.S. should not support Islamic, Buddhist or Hindu states?

Or just not support Jewish states?

[dlwickham]

24. the US supports plenty of Islamic states

Saudi Arabia for example

I think Nepal is officially a Buddhist country or maybe Bhutan-one of those little countries in that area

[former9thward]

31. The poster I replied to said the U.S. should not support religious based states such as Israel.

I asked the poster if that also applied to other religious based states. I like consistency.

[geek tragedy]

32. Religious based state is a lot less offensive if a majority of the population

actually adheres to that faith and it enjoys at least a semblance of popular support or legitimacy.

That certainly will not be the case in Israel's case.

[former9thward]

36. The UN mandate set Israel up as a Jewish state.

That is what it will remain despite the efforts of others to destroy it.

[geek tragedy]

39. Then it will be an apartheid regime that will earn its place in the history books next to

Botha-era South Africa and Jim Crow.

Also note that it was not set up to rule Arabs without giving them the right to vote or to illegally seize land won in war.

[former9thward]

76. Since you are interested in history maybe you could include a couple facts.

The UN wanted two states in the region. One Arab (Islamic) and one Jewish. Neither was supposed to rule the other. The Arabs decided they wanted to rule the Jews by driving them into the sea so they declared war on Israel the day it was created. They used the Palestinians as pawns and have continued to do that until this day. They treat them like garbage in their refugee camps in Jordan and Lebanon. I know facts are inconvenient to the Israeli haters but they won't go away.

[geek tragedy]

87. Well, Israel has made an Arab state a physical impossibility

in addition to already being a political impossibility.

So, they very well can't thwart the UN resolution when it comes to the Arabs and then hide behind it as it pertains to them.

[former9thward]

103. Again you turn history on its head.

It was not Israel that attacked the Arabs. Several times. If the Arabs had not attacked Israel there certainly could have been two states. Now after 60+ years of trying to drive the Jews into the sea the Arabs complain that physical borders have changed. The Palestinians to this very day refuse to recognize Israel and have as one of their principles the total destruction of Israel. As long as they hold to that there will never be two states.

[geek tragedy]

109. Who forced the Israelis to build settlements throughout the West Bank? nt

[former9thward]

117. Maybe the same thing that forced the U.S. to expand beyond the Atlantic coast.

Population grows. Would you like to see the U.S. give back all the land beyond the original colonies? Or do you just want to tell Jewish counties what to do?

[geek tragedy]

119. Oy, so you're a supporter of settlement expansion.

The US was at least honest enough to formally annex the territory and grant inhabitants the right to vote.

[former9thward]

133. LOL

Yeah they wee really honest with the Natives. That is the only interpretation like that I have ever read. But the hate Israel crowd has always been into re-writing history. Now they are doing it for the U.S.

[dlwickham]

140. the Native Americans were given the right to vote

when the settlers took their land?

I missed that in my history classes

[cpwm17]

110. As usual, an Israel supporter gets reality exactly backwards

The Palestinians are Arabs. The pre-Israel Zionist attacked the Palestinians, starting in 1947, first. They expelled the Palestinians off their own land that was illegally designated for Jews, and also expelled the Palestinians from the land that was supposed to remain with the Palestinians.

The fighting was mostly on the land that was supposed to remain with the Palestinians. The Zionists were trying to take it all. That's why they ended up with a large portion of Palestine that was supposed to remain with the Palestinians.

The huge flood of Palestinian refugees into their countries provoked the Palestinian neighbors to get involved.

[former9thward]

115. A complete fabrication.

What kook website did you get your history from? Israel was attacked the very day it was created. It defended the boundaries drawn up under the UN mandate. Of course the Arabs continued to attack over the decades and then they complain about a loss of territory.
How many copies of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion did you sell last week?

[cpwm17]

118. Here's the Wikipedia version of the Palestinians' expulsion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus

You are a Palestinian Nakba denier. It started in 1947. Nobody has a right to declare a nation on somebody else's land. Only a racist thinks that is defensible.

[former9thward]

132. Let's see what Wiki says about its own article:

The neutrality of this article's title, subject matter, and/or the title's implications, is disputed. This article's factual accuracy is disputed. The neutrality of this article is disputed


Enough said. Were you one of the 'editors' of this article?

[cpwm17]

143. You are denying objective reality n/t

[Ken Burch]

112. The PA recognized Israel in 1994, so you can't say "The Palestinians refuse to recognize Israel"

Oslo put the recognition issue to rest.

[former9thward]

114. Try again.

The people of Gaza, where most of the contention has occurred, voted in Hamas as their representative. Hamas does not recognize Israel and wished to kill every Jew in the world.

[dlwickham]

139. why do you have to bring facts into this discussion

[azurnoir]

42. The UN used the terms Jewish State and Arab State to differenciate

between the 2 groups living in colonial Palestine at the time nothing more nothing less

[former9thward]

72. Absolutely false.

The UN mandate intended for two states in the region -- one Jewish and one Arab. Don't try and re-write history just because you don't like the outcome.

[azurnoir]

86. ah but that is not what I said is it ? n/t

[Catherina]

12. One State, the inevitable and fairest end at this point n/t

[JDPriestly]

14. Yes. A two-state solution is obvious.

But what borders do the Palestinians realistically want to agree to? That is the big question. And who will be in charge in Jerusalem? The biggest question of all?

There have been negotiations in the past, but no lasting agreement on borders. What should they be? And will both sides enforce them? Or should some outside body be formed to enforce the borders?

So, just admonishing Israelis to negotiate without admonishing Palestinians to do the same won't work.

And negotiating means giving up things. Which of its claims is each side willing to give up at this point?

It's so easy to write an article scolding the Israelis, but it isn't so easy to propose specific solutions. Both sides need peace.

I think the only way to insure it is to set some borders and enforce them on everyone from the smallest child to the oldest grandparents -- on both sides of those borders for another 50 years until people finally see their similarities as more important than their differences.

[The Magistrate]

16. True, Sir: Admonishment Is Needed To Both Sides

However, the Israeli settlement policy is in effect a course of creeping annexation, beyond the generally accepted borders of Israel, into land held only by military occupation. It is establishing a situation which will make a state of Arab Palestine impracticable. It is hard to avoid the conclusion this is the intent of the policy.

[geek tragedy]

19. We are past the point of present-day admonishments.

The question is now one of positioning for the day when the numbers make Zionism and democracy mathematically incompatible.

[JDPriestly]

123. It is the Palestinians' unwillingness to agree to specific borders that is establishing

a situation in which a state of Arab Palestine is impracticable.

My understanding is that the land Israel wants to "settle" is an area that Israel "won" in the 1967 war. That was a long time ago. Palestine lost it and needs to negotiate to get it back. If you think Palestine wants that land back so much, what would you suggest that Palestine trade for getting it back?

That's the way negotiations work. Each side comes to the table and makes an offer, "I get this and you get that." In civil courts in America, frequently a plaintiff offers to drop a claim against the defendant if the defendant compensates the plaintiff for a loss.

What do you think Palestine would be able to give up in order to get that land back. The alternative is to continue to fight. Personally, I would negotiate.

[Douglas Carpenter]

125. The only offers Israel have been to willing consider are offers which dissect the West Bank-

makes access to East Jerusalem difficult or impossible and leave Israel in control of all movement.


" In the end, he said, “there is no Palestinian state, even though the Israelis speak of one.” Instead, he said, “there will be a settler state and a Palestinian built-up area, divided into three sectors, cut by fingers of Israeli settlement and connected only by narrow roads."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/11/world/middleeast/11road.html?_r=7&pagewanted=2&ei=5070&en=22948d4799a34065&ex=1187496000&emc=eta1&oref=


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/728a69d4-12b1-11dc-a475-000b5df10621,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F728a69d4-12b1-11dc-a475-000b5df10621.html%3Fnclick_check%3D1&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.democraticunderground.com%2Fdiscuss%2Fdu


There are approximately 450,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank, (*now closer to 500,000) including East Jerusalem. According to B'tselem: The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights, " the built-up area of the settlements in the West Bank covers 1.7 percent of the West Bank, the settlements control 41.9 percent of the entire West Bank".* http://www.btselem.org/English/Maps/Index.asp

As appears from the map, while the built-up area of the settlements in the West Bank covers 1.7 percent of the West Bank, the settlements control 41.9 percent of the entire West Bank.
full PDF map: http://www.btselem.org/Download/Settlements_Map_Eng.pdf

[geek tragedy]

126. The Israelis aren't willing to end the occupation or relinquish the cancerous settlements.

So there's precious little to negotiate over.

The Israelis aren't going to give the land back, ever.

The wall and the iron dome have solved the problem as far as Israel is concerned. From their perspective, the Palestinians have nothing to offer.

[JDPriestly]

141. The Israelis have destroyed settlements in the past. They certainly could do it again.

http://photoblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/15/9466492-israel-tears-down-unauthorized-west-bank-settler-outpost?lite

If they can tear down unauthorized settlements, they can tear down any settlements. That is not the problem.

[The Magistrate]

127. In Point Of Fact, Sir

The land referred to is under military occupation, and there are rules for this. Among them is that a government cannot displace or dispossess inhabitants, and cannot move its own people into the occupied area. The settlement program is illegal under international law; there is no serious question remaining on that topic.

I agree the political leadership of the people of Arab Palestine has made a botch of things many times over, and that they ought to have made very clear what boundaries they would accept, and those boundaries ought to have shown some reasonable relation to the actual facts of the situation, and been utterly without aspirational elements. Both sides have been a bit kittenish over the question of final boundaries, because both sides hope to get a slice of what the other has, and both cherish the idea of of full control 'from the river to the sea'. I have always been of the view that the Armistice lines functioning as borders between Israel and territories of the old Palestine Mandate occupied by Jordan and Egypt ought, with perhaps some small adjustments, to be regularized as the borders between Israel and Arab Palestine.

The problem with the settlement program, aside from its illegality, is that it has the effect of rendering a second state, a state of Arab Palestine, a practical impossibility. This will create a permanent population of stateless people, living under foreign military rule for an indefinite period of time, the end of which no one could foresee. This really is not a tolerable outcome.

[libodem]

15. England and Ireland

Formed a two state solution, we need start thinking of a way to fix this thing. God help us if we don't. Are we not all his children?
Does not everyone deserve a place to live? Who wandered homeless for centuries and were mercilessly persecuted for having to wander in the wilderness and forge a living in alleyway ghetto shacks, between buildings? How soon we forget.

[geek tragedy]

20. The policy on the Israeli side is to make a solution impossible.

They are not interested in a resolution. They want the land, the water, the air, and the power.

They have all of that now, so they see no need to negotiate.

[dlwickham]

25. and we saw how well that worked out for however many years

[Xithras]

35. England and Ireland...

...drew a line on the map around Ulster. Everything on the left was Ireland. Everything on the right was England.

How are you going to do that with Palestine?

The red spots are Israeli settlements. And this is 7 years old...it's even worse now.

[libodem]

71. I've advocated the big circle theory before

Draw a circle around all the sacred spots for Christians Jewish folks, and Muslims and make it no man's land. You can go visit but no one owns them. Neither side is favored. Everyone can visit the shrines and antiquities.
Charge them a dollar and send it to libodem the decider.
Bows, thank you, and the UN may feel free to implement this without giving me personal credit.

[Recursion]

158. The UN tried that after 48

It didn't work.

[libodem]

176. Yesterday

My incredulous friend said they are blood, and they have been at this 800 years, stay out of it.

[Recursion]

177. That's an important myth to quash. There really wasn't tension until the 20th century

Jews have always lived in historic Palestine, and until Europeans tried to move in by the millions, it wasn't a problem.

[libodem]

178. Id always thought about 1948

And again in 67 or something. I should have asked her more. She thinks internet discussions are unfathomable. She doesn't get it. She can't believe I care what an electronic message board pixel has to say. I find useful information but I have also allowed it to upset me.

Shalom. Peace on Earth.

[oberliner]

180. You truly have no clue

1834 Safed pogrom

The 1834 Safed pogrom (Hebrew: ‎ביזת צפת בשנת תקצ"ד, "Plunder of Safed, 5594 AM&quot was prolonged attack against the Jewish community of Safed, Palestine, during the 1834 Peasants' Revolt. It began on Sunday June 15 (7 Sivan), the day after the Jewish holiday of Shavuot, and lasted for the next 33 days.[1][2] One account suggests the rioting was premeditated, organised by a local anti-Semitic Muslim cleric,[3] while others believe it was a spontaneous attack which took advantage of a defenceless population in the midst of the armed uprising against Egyptian rule

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1834_Safed_pogrom

[geek tragedy]

18. Israelis are deep in denial that Zionism and democracy are headed for a divorce.

Palestinians are helping drive that reality home.

The Israelis have taken Zionism--which was once a noble enterprise--and corrupted such that it will inevitably be a subspecies of apartheid.

[Blue_Tires]

138. Uglier and uglier...

I know it's not a popular sentiment, but it's getting to the point where I'd rather the U.S. just wash their hands completely of the entire mess, and let it come to it's inevitable head...

[Fozzledick]

144. OMG! THE SKY IS FALLING!! EVERYWON PANIC!!!

CONSTRUKTION IS SCHEDULED TO BEGIN IN E1!!!!

In three or four years.
EVERYTHING IZ GOING TO GO OVAR THE CLIFF!!!!!

Unless Abbas agrees to negotiate first.


But Abbas refuses to negotiate.

Because CONSTRUKTION IS SCHEDULED TO BEGIN IN E1!!!!

In three or four years.


This thread needs some LOLcats. In yarmulkes and keffiyehs.

[cpwm17]

145. Then cool – you're for a "one-state solution"

problem solved. It's already one state. A "one-state solution" would give everybody equal rights.

Only a far right-winged racist can support the "settlements" and not support a "one-state solution." In fact, only a far right-winger can support the "settlements" at all.

[Fozzledick]

146. I doubted I'd get any replies way down here but I just had to get it out.

I still doubt if I'll get any intelligent replies.