To eventually annex it, i.e. theft of land, and ensure there is no such a thing as a viable Palestinian state.
Israel launches air strikes on Gaza
- Thread starter holyland red
- Start date
To eventually annex it, i.e. theft of land, and ensure there is no such a thing as a viable Palestinian state.
Jordan is already a viable Palestinian state.
80% are Palestinian, so is the queen, and Jordan itself eats up 78% of Palestine.
Of course, the Arabs could have had a second Palestine, but rejected the idea in 1948 and attacked Israel for just being there.
Pity they got whooped hey.
And UN242 says nothing about illegal occupation
Except they've had it for quite a while and haven't done so.
Any theories on that?
How about their neighbors? Why exactly was a buffer needed from all of their neighbors?
Were their neighbors intent on working to "ensure there is no such a thing as a viable Israeli state"?
In fact, isn't the current elected leading party in Palestine most known for its efforts and pledge to "ensure there is no such a thing as a viable Israeli state"?
Blame the Jews. It has worked for millenia. Why stop now?
I think both Israel and Hamas are all missile frenzy hiding behind the petty argument of "who's firing first"
while they're both finger itchy to launch the next missile
while they're both finger itchy to launch the next missile
It's frightening the amount of people who don't know why Israel won the 1967borders.
And from who.
Jordan is already a Palestinian state, so Palestinians don't need one? By that reasoning US is already an Israeli state, hence no need for that one either. Jordan has become home to millions of the Palestinian refugees BECAUSE of the illegal occupation, you expect them to stay there and get slaughtered to death? Yeah, how dare they escape Israel's occupation of their land, since they espcaped, now they can't come back
What happened in 1948 was a shame, but did Israel ask the opinions of the millions of Palestinians when they decided to create Israel in a land populated by Palestinians? How will Israelis and Jews worldwide feel if UN decides to create a sovereign Kurdish state in Jerusalem? Will they just stand still and applaud?
UN242 says Israel must end it's occupation and withdraw from territories captured in 1967.
The fact they've had it for this long, the longest military occupation in recent history, building settlements non-stop, ensuring Palestinians can't live there without constant harrassment and The Wall are all indications of Israel's intentions to keep the territories.
Hamas has already stated that they WILL RECOGNIZE Israel if it withdraws to its 1967 borders as required by the International Law.
Jordan is already a Palestinian state, so Palestinians don't need one? By that reasoning US is already an Israeli state, hence no need for that one either. Jordan has become home to millions of the Palestinian refugees BECAUSE of the illegal occupation, you expect them to stay there and get slaughtered to death? Yeah, how dare they escape Israel's occupation of their land, since they espcaped, now they can't come back
What happened in 1948 was a shame, but did Israel ask the opinions of the millions of Palestinians when they decided to create Israel in a land populated by Palestinians? How will Israelis and Jews worldwide feel if UN decides to create a sovereign Kurdish state in Jerusalem? Will they just stand still and applaud?
UN242 says Israel must end it's occupation and withdraw from territories captured in 1967.
I don't share Fearless' vision as it's not realistic, and I think the solution has to based on modern demography rather than on 60 year-old maps. Still, Jordan's population is 80% Palestinian mainly because it's part of it's an integral part of the territory given for British mandtae by the League of Nations in 1918.
The analogy to Kurds in Jerusalem is really daft, and does not strengthen your opinion whatsoever. Do you deny the fact the Israel/Palestine is the historic homeland of the Jewish people. Jews have to (and the majority of them do) agree a compromise since history has seen the land occupied many times, and non-Jews that have settled there can't be removed. On the same token, Palestinians have to stop their denial campaign (and very few have) claiming Jews have no historic right over the disputed land (hence your daft analogy).
As for 242, it does mention returning territories, but not ALL territories that were captured in 1967.
Hamas has agree to nothing more than a truce under these conditions, that incidently include handing Jerusalem to the Palestinians.
Why on earth should Israel do that?
Holyland, can I ask you what would be a viable settlement in your eyes?
Would you, or do you favour a two-state solution of Israel and Palestine?
And what conditions would have to be met, by both sides, in order for a settlement to work?
Not at all, there's no doubt it's a sacred place to the Jewish people just as it is to the Muslims. Saying Israel shouldn't exist is pure bullshit, it's not only wrong but impossible.
The Kurdish analogy was just to point out to Fearless that the war that broke out in 1948 was largely because the Palestinian people's opinion and those of Arabs were not even considered when UN decided to create Israel where it did. It's like UN deciding to create another state within Israel, can you imagine the reaction by the Israeli gov't and the Jews worldwide to that? Anybody will be angry when their land is being taken away and given to somebody else.
False.
Hamas have agreed to recognize Israel's right to exist and renounce violence if Israel withdraws to the pre 1967 borders, That doesn't include all of Jerusalem as you're saying, but East Jerusalem because it is part of the occupied territories.
Yes. The conditions would be:
1. Both sides will acknowledge each other's right for self determination in their own nation-state.
2. Palestine would be completely demilitarised (other than for policing purposes).
3. Israel joining NATO.
4. Palestinian border crossings will be monitored by NATO (non Israeli) personnel during a transitional period to be agreed upon be both sides.
5. Territory exchange, in which Israel will keep (relatively) heavily populated areas captured in 1967, and in exchange will hand to Palestine areas it had held before 1967 which are populated by Arabs.
6.Jerusalem- UN soverignty in Jerusalem old city, with equal rights to all three major religions in the city. That includes the right to pray on the Temple Mount, which is reserved to muslims only even under the Israeli opressive occupation. It would also include any development in the old city to be approved by scientists and religious authorities of all parties in order to prevent rewriting history by destroying evidence for Jewish history on the mountain (as muslims have tried to do recently).
"Israel must not be recognized and the Palestinian Foreign Ministry should aim to establish a Palestinian State from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean, in place of the Jewish State" PA Foreign Minister Mahmoud al-Zahar said according to Palestinian media reports.
Al-Zahar made the remarks during his first meeting with Foreign Ministry officials and ahead of the first session to be held by the Hamas-led Palestinian government.
As for Jerusalem, East Jerusalem was never part of a proposed Palestinian state. It was occupied by Jordan prior to 1967, and was supposed to be "corpus separatum" under the partition plan of 1947.
Why on earth should it be handed to the Palestinians?
Those comments are the views IF ISRAEL DOES NOT END IT'S OCCUPATION, Why should they recognize Israel if the occupation goes on?
Hamas have OFFERED TO AGREE to Israel's recognition IF Israel end their occupation, an offer Israel have completely rejected and denied.
East Jerusalem was never part of a proposed Palestinian state BY Israel. It is part of occupied territories which Israel is required to withdraw from, that's why it has to end it's occupation of East Jerusalem.
Nonesense. You are welcome to use the internet and find the quote with the alleged generous offer by Hamas officials.
Israel never proposed a Palestinians state, but under the UN partition plan Jerusalem was not part of the Palestinian state. Does it have to be now because Jordan occupied the city in the 1948 war? I thought you didn't agree with getting rights over a land by occupation. UN 242 resolution states that Israel has to withdraw from territories, and not from ALL territories, and that is for a reason. The territories were occupied prior to 1967, but surprisingly enough nobody cared about the occupied Palestinian population during the Egyptian/Jordanian occupation. Not the UN, not the Arab League and not even British academics.
Reasonable conditions. Although I think numbers 5 and 6 would be very contentious, this is as good a starting point as any.
Number two would be difficult to achieve, but I suppose if the disarmament was done under the auspices of the UN, and the international community gave it its backing, it would be achievable.
I mentioned before that international observers may have to be stationed alon the Jordanian border, in order to monitor (and perhaps prevent) illegal arms transfers. This may have to be a long-term posting, like the NATO troops in Serbia/Kosovo, but it may well be a necessary one.
Finally, I am assuming that the 'right of return' would only be available for Palestinians who wished to settle in the West Bank? Or would it have to be given up?
Hamas offered a long-term truce if Israel withdrew completely fto the 1967 borders
That isn't peace, or recognition. There is always a risk that after Israel completely withdraws, Hamas will turn around and claim the rest of historical Paletine as well
I wouldn't have any problem with Palestinians coming back to live in the future Palestinian state. However, judging by the sentiments of the Israeli Arabs, this is not such a tempting proposition.
Can't we all just agree the baby's blood drinkers are at fault here and work to make a better world with no banks and no Barbara Streisand?
and poor old Geddy Lee
Just to clarify that I meant that Israel would keep areas with the larger jewish stettlements, and will give a similar Arab-populated area in return.
What the difficulty with 6?
For me, nothing. I think that is a very sensible suggestion.
To clarif my point I just think that Hamas, and many other extremist Palestinian groups will kick up a huge fuss about it (to say the least).
Not to mention other Arab governments who will be scared shitless at the prospect of a viable, democratic Palestinian state (whichwould co-exist with Israel), and what this would mean for their own populations.
But I think that the majority of Palestinians could be convinced of the logicality of that suggestion.
Oh, and the land swap idea is a very intriguing one, and one that could work. I think the Arab-populated areas would have to be given the chance to vote on whether they want to remain part of Israel itself, or part of Palestine.
But I think that the majority of Palestinians could be convinced of the logicality of that suggestion.
That could be addressed by getting Palestinian Mickey Mouse on our side.
Oh, and the land swap idea is a very intriguing one, and one that could work. I think the Arab-populated areas would have to be given the chance to vote on whether they want to remain part of Israel itself, or part of Palestine.
I don't think they should be given a right to vote on the matter. They are Palestinians, and as long as it is possible should be part of the Palestinan state. If Jews can be thrown out of their homes and have their settlements dismantled, then I'm sure Arabs could live with being a part of the Palestinian state they have been craving for without having to leave their homes.
We've been told that they've been here for generations, and not always under Israeli rule. That's just another minor transition they'll have to go thorugh without even leaving home. They go to bed, and wake up to find a different flag flying in the village.
That could be addressed by getting Palestinian Mickey Mouse on our side.
Oh, and the land swap idea is a very intriguing one, and one that could work. I think the Arab-populated areas would have to be given the chance to vote on whether they want to remain part of Israel itself, or part of Palestine.
I don't think they should be given a right to vote on the matter. They are Palestinians, and as long as it is possible should be part of the Palestinan state. If Jews can be thrown out of their homes and have their settlements dismantled, then I'm sure Arabs could live with being a part of the Palestinian state they have been craving for without having to leave their homes.
We've been told that they've been here for generations, and not always under Israeli rule. That's just another minor transition they'll have to go thorugh without even leaving home. They go to bed, and wake up to find a different flag flying in the village.
Fair point about the voting rights
But as for the Palestinian Mickey Mouse suggestion, do you really want to piss off Disney any more?
The funny thing is that Walt Disney was accused of being an antisemitic, so he must be really proud of the Palestinian version of the Mouse.
Where's that photo of Raffa the Hamouse and the AK-47 when you need it?
What are the chances of the Muslims actually granting the Jews the right to worship though?? Haven't jews been asking for it for years? Doesn't seem likely to me.
Jews are divided on this issue among themselves. The largely secular administration have authorized visits to the mountain since 1967, but worshiping is prohibited. This policy passed smoothly even among natioanlist orthodox Jews, because according to Major Jewish orthodox Rabbis the "Halacha" forbids Jews from visiting the mountain, and violation is punishable with death no less!
The ultra-orthodox are agianst the visits, while the nationalists are divided on the issue. However, as times goes by the loons are likely to have the upper hand in that debate pushing theirt political agenda rather than for theological reasons.
As for the muslims granting rights, they are not in a position to make those decisions. When they were (under Jordanian rule) Jews were not allowed to access to the Western Wall, in violation of the 1949 Armistice Agreement.
Even earlier, as early as 1929, 133 Jews were murdered by Arabs as a result of a dispute over access to the Western Wall.
Thankfully we're not in a position where the Arabs grant rights to anything in Jerusalem anymore.
Hamas: We’ll recognize Israel within '67 borders
Of course I don't agree with getting rights over a land by occupation. You have to see what the people whose land you're taking feel about the occupation, Jordan and Egypt are Arab mulsim countries who didn't demolish Palestinian homes and build settlements for Non-Palestinians, it wasn't a barbaric military occupation like Israel's occupation of those lands. So If Palestinians feel fine under Jordanian rule of their lands, then it's no problem, that doesn't mean that they should say Yes to being occupied by Israel whose occupation is anything but humane let alone legal.
Of course I don't agree with getting rights over a land by occupation. You have to see what the people whose land you're taking feel about the occupation, Jordan and Egypt are Arab mulsim countries who didn't demolish Palestinian homes and build settlements for Non-Palestinians, it wasn't a barbaric military occupation like Israel's occupation of those lands. So If Palestinians feel fine under Jordanian rule of their lands, then it's no problem, that doesn't mean that they should say Yes to being occupied by Israel whose occupation is anything but humane let alone legal.
That's you moving out of your Canadian home, then.
Hamas recognition of Israel's right to exist. It still doesn't exist.
Why, are you yanks smelling oil up here?
they've implicitly said IF Israel withdraws to the pre 1967 borders, then there will be recognition. Of course they will not say they formally recognize Isreal when occupation is still going on.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5121164.stm
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3249568,00.html
Yes, and we're sending our big nosed friends* to come take it from you.
* and dear old Geddy Lee
but what's your excuse gonna be? we don't have Weapons of Mass Destruction, and we do have Democracy, I'm still sure CIA can make something up again though
Implicitly.
And you'd be really big on trusting the possible implicated statements of an organisation that has vowed to destroy the nation of Israel time and time again on exactly the issue of whether they would destroy Israel?
I wouldn't.
Again, why was there a 1967 war? Or any of the other wars?
Is it within the very remotest sphere of possibility that the plan has (on numerous occassions) been to wipe out all trace of Israel? Go with your gut on this one.
About 30 years ago, those intent on the genocide of the Jews realised that they would never win an actual war to do so, and that terrorism combined with cuddling up to the naive/anti-semitic leaders and people of the west was the best way to go to meet their objective.
They have whipped much of the Western World into an anti-Israeli frenzy - a frenzy that means that the actions of Hamas and others go excused or uncommented upon again and again whilst the merest sneeze from Israel results in the political weight of the world coming down on them.
This has allowed them to never seriously come to the table with any intention on peace - both betraying their enemies and their own people - without generally getting called on it from anyone, and in fact being praised for the great efforts they went to make peace with those warmongering fiends from the Jewish state.
There are those who want to live in peace and freedom - like the average Palestinian and the average Israeli.
Then there are people like Hamas - whose word we are supposed to take (if they had even ever given it, which they haven't) that the whole genocide agenda was just a phase, like acne on a teenaged girl.
Would you bet your children's lives on it being a phase?
but what's your excuse gonna be? we don't have Weapons of Mass Destruction, and we do have Democracy, I'm still sure CIA can make something up again though
We need Tony Blair's help if we're going to get anywhere near our creative peak circa 1998-2002.
I was thinking "you invented ice hockey, which is a threat to the stability of frozen lakes everywhere". Sounds good to me. Even better if we can implicate Michigan and perhaps Wisconsin in this as well.
Oh, and some of you speak French. I think that's nuke territory there, actually. How much would it cost to de-radiate oil? I'll ask Uncle Dick.
Thank you for actually ignoring the sarky-ness and debating with us, btw. If you have seen the depths of depravity that the Caf often comes to on this subject you would see why some of us are a bit jaded in the discussion. Any reference I make to Jewish people as all sorts of things - namechangers, baby blood drinkers, etc, is all stuff that has been seen on the Caf in the last year or so.
Even aside from the racist stuff, there also seems to be a tendency to just completely ignore the wrongdoing of those attacking Israel, and just pounce on Israel the second they attempt to take any action whatsoever.