Jerusalem is Israel's Capital...

[Bonam]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Why?

I agree with you that it would be convenient for everyone if the West Bank went to Jordan, Gaza went to Egypt, and the residents of those areas integrated nicely into those countries, and everyone lived happily ever after. But, I don't think that's a realistic possibility. It's akin to hoping that Quebec decides the French language was a bad idea, learning English, and lobbying to make Canada a unilingual English speaking country. Sure, it would make it easier for everyone, but never gonna happen. 

The Palestinians don't want to be part of Jordan or Egypt, and Jordan and Egypt most definitely do not want the Palestinians.

And, of course, the "one state" solution does not work since the Palestinian population is a demographic problem for Israel, if Israel were to formally annex the West Bank, it could not remain a state whose primary character is to be the homeland of Jews while also remaining democratic since the majority of the population would soon be Arab Muslims. 

Neither is the current status quo a reasonable long term situation. While a better solution has not yet presented itself, keeping the Palestinians an essentially stateless people forever is not reasonable and leads to discontent and violence. 

A separate Palestinian state is therefore the only realistic solution that has a chance at long term stability.

[Michael Hardner]

21 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

1) And yet, you do not hear those who advocate for keeping things the way they are, you know, the ones with actual skin in the game.

2) Is "listening" only working for viewpoints that are as compliant and peaceful  as yours ?

1) Sure I do.  Who is doing that ?  Ostensibly everyone indicates that they want 'peace' though.

2) Hmmmm.  Sure seems like a loaded question.  I don't think I know the answer to this. I don't remember people advocating non-compliance and war on here.

[OftenWrong]

4 minutes ago, Bonam said:

A separate Palestinian state is therefore the only realistic solution that has a chance at long term stability.

Yet this does not seem very likely, by your own earlier post...

2 hours ago, Bonam said:

Multiple sets of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians over the last several decades have resulted in Israel offering the Palestinians to have their own state on the vast majority of Gaza and the West Bank and parts of East Jerusalem on multiple occasions. In each case, the Palestinians refused, in some cases following up this refusal with waves of violence and terrorism.

 

[marcus]

4 hours ago, Bonam said:

Multiple sets of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians over the last several decades have resulted in Israel offering the Palestinians to have their own state on the vast majority of Gaza and the West Bank and parts of East Jerusalem on multiple occasions. In each case, the Palestinians refused, in some cases following up this refusal with waves of violence and terrorism. I suspect the current Israeli government may be less driven than some previous ones to find a negotiated settlement, but it is hard to blame them given that so many iterations of peace talks have been fruitless. At this point, it's up to the Palestinian leadership to prove to Israel that it is interested in peace and a negotiated settlement and come to the table with a reasonable proposal. 

The Palestinians have given offers, much closer to the 1967, internationally recognized border and Israel has refused. Have you seen the best offer given to the Palestinians? Could it be that the offers were no good? The best offer Barak gave was for Palestinians to live in Bantustans. For Israel to continue to control the roads that separated towns and villages, including allowing for Israel to control all borders.

Here is the map of Barak's last and best offer:

There was the Arab League offer, which included full acceptance of Israel and the normalization of ties with Israel that every Israeli prime minister has refused since its signing in 2002.  

Why is Israel so afraid of the Arab Peace Initiative?

It promises full diplomatic ties with the Muslim world, including Iran. It's the ‘best idea ever,’ says an ex-Likud minister. So why does the government reject the Arab world's ostensible path to peace?

Time of Israel

[bush_cheney2004]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) Sure I do.  Who is doing that ?  Ostensibly everyone indicates that they want 'peace' though.

 

"Wanting" peace is no substitute for the demonstrated willingness to sustain war.

Military action(s) have achieved and maintained Israel's objectives, not peace pipes.

[Bonam]

52 minutes ago, marcus said:

The Palestinians have given offers, much closer to the 1967, internationally recognized border and Israel has refused. Have you seen the best offer given to the Palestinians? Could it be that the offers were no good? The best offer Barak gave was for Palestinians to live in Bantustans. For Israel to continue to control the roads that separated towns and villages, including allowing for Israel to control all borders.

Here is the map of Barak's last and best offer:

There was the Arab League offer, which included full acceptance of Israel and the normalization of ties with Israel that every Israeli prime minister has refused since its signing in 2002.  

Why is Israel so afraid of the Arab Peace Initiative?

It promises full diplomatic ties with the Muslim world, including Iran. It's the ‘best idea ever,’ says an ex-Likud minister. So why does the government reject the Arab world's ostensible path to peace?

Time of Israel

Most maps you find like that have been heavily re-characterized by propaganda sites to make them seem worse for Palestinians than they really are. See below:

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/eileen-read/dont-play-with-israel-pal_b_569981.html

Or here is the 2008 peace offer map made by Olmert and rejected by Abbas. To my eye, the below looks like an offer any reasonable person would jump at... you go from being stateless to getting over 95% of the territory you want. The offer also included evacuation of many Israeli settlements in the West Bank, along with land swaps from other parts of Israel to compensate for territory where Israeli settlements would remain. 

Unfortunately, this proposal was also rejected. Chances are the Palestinians will never get an offer quite this good again, they'll likely have to settle for slightly less in any future deal. The official motto of the Palestinian leadership has always been "never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity". 

Edited December 18, 2017 by Bonam

[eyeball]

9 hours ago, Bonam said:

Most reasonable people support a two state solution.

The real question is exactly what land a future Palestinian state would exist on.

Personally, I think that besides Gaza and the West Bank, some additional territory should be contributed to any such future state from Egypt, Jordan, and maybe even a bit from Lebanon and Syria. All of these states are the homelands of what are now considered the Palestinian people, and yet they find themselves barred from citizenship and confined to refugee camps in those states, and often treated worse by those states than they are by Israel. Besides that, even if the Palestinians got as much of the West Bank and East Jerusalem as they could possibly hope to get, it's still not enough to form a viable state, more territory is needed. 

I think Palestine should be located in Europe. That's where responsibility for Palestinian dispossession lays. You break it you own it I say.

[marcus]

37 minutes ago, Bonam said:

Most maps you find like that have been heavily re-characterized by propaganda sites to make them seem worse for Palestinians than they really are. See below:

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/eileen-read/dont-play-with-israel-pal_b_569981.html

Or here is the 2008 peace offer map made by Olmert and rejected by Abbas. To my eye, the below looks like an offer any reasonable person would jump at... you go from being stateless to getting over 95% of the territory you want. The offer also included evacuation of many Israeli settlements in the West Bank, along with land swaps from other parts of Israel to compensate for territory where Israeli settlements would remain. 

Unfortunately, this proposal was also rejected. Chances are the Palestinians will never get an offer quite this good again, they'll likely have to settle for slightly less in any future deal. The official motto of the Palestinian leadership has always been "never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity". 

There was no actual map offered at the Camp David talks. So "He said, she said."

Abbas had a counter offer to Olmert's proposal which was not accepted. Also, Olmert wanted to relinquish the right of return of what is now over 7,000,000 Palestinian refugees scattered in Gaza, West Bank, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and other places. 

Contrary to the propaganda you keep repeating, it wasn't so black and white: "Israel offered, Palestinians rejected." Palestinians counter offered and then Olmert was gone. Plus, no one believed that any offers from Olmert would go through. He had corruption charges against him and his party was going to be decimated in the following elections. Olmert's offer had no teeth or weight to it and it was in its infancy, before Olmert had to leave office. Not to mention that Abbas had a counter offer which was rejected.

What you didn't respond to is the Arab Leagues "Generous Offer". Signed in 2002 and it has been re-signed every time it has been brought forward ever since. Why is Israel not interested in even talking about it? Why not counter it? What is it with Israel and its addiction to conflict? The Arab League, unanimously, agreed to accept the State of Israel and to normalize relations. This offer included only compensation for the Palestinians who were driven from their homes in what is now Israel, instead of right of return. Israel, in this case, didn't even entertain the offer. 

The way that I see it is that Israel just isn't interested in any real and just peace. Not the rotating governments who come into power anyway. Perhaps the people would be, but the governments are not. Even Olmert's so-called offer, which never even took off and was just chatter, may look pretty decent on the map, but included control over Palestinian borders and air. It also included control over major roads that cut through Palestinian land and many of the settlements were to remain.

[marcus]

If you want a run-down of the offers by Israel, here is a page that goes through them.

[bush_cheney2004]

45 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I think Palestine should be located in Europe. That's where responsibility for Palestinian dispossession lays. You break it you own it I say.

 

....or Canada, colossal settlement from the Empire that helped to create the ME mess to begin with...lots of land for Palestinians, just ask Justin Trudeau.

[Argus]

15 hours ago, Bonam said:

I agree with you that it would be convenient for everyone if the West Bank went to Jordan, Gaza went to Egypt, and the residents of those areas integrated nicely into those countries, and everyone lived happily ever after. But, I don't think that's a realistic possibility. It's akin to hoping that Quebec decides the French language was a bad idea, learning English, and lobbying to make Canada a unilingual English speaking country. Sure, it would make it easier for everyone, but never gonna happen. 

Quebecers want to protect their language and culture. The language and culture of Palestinians is identical to that of the Jordanians. Jordan IS Palestine. It was simply sliced off earlier and renamed. Jordanians ARE Palestinians. There is no reason with any logic to it why they shouldn't be put together again. It would be a functioning state with a functioning government and enough resources to actually operate without being an international charity case. The Gaza residents are indistinguishable from the Egyptians who live just across the border - a border, I remind you, which was created by westerners anyway, without regard to the ethnicity of those separated by it. The people of Gaza and the West bank would be far, far better off attached to Jordan and Egypt.

15 hours ago, Bonam said:

The Palestinians don't want to be part of Jordan or Egypt, and Jordan and Egypt most definitely do not want the Palestinians.

Has anyone asked them? Anyway, Hamas is still telling them Jerusalem will one day be their capital - ALL of Jerusalem. They're living on fantasies.

As for Jordan and Egypt, nations are rarely upset at being given new territory. Granted, these new territories would come with additional costs and problems, but I'm sure some generosity from foreign donors would be persuasive. Remember, Jordan annexed the West bank at one point, including part of Jerusalem. Offer them enough so the area doesn't become a drain on resources I think they'd jump at it. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 2017-12-17 at 12:32 PM, Argus said:

Can you think of one logical reason they would NOT want that?

One reason would be that the government has always rejected the Apartheid analogy as slanderous. In the Bennett model, you will have de facto Bantustans surrounded by the Israeli state whose inhabitants have no rights in the state. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 2017-12-18 at 1:34 PM, Argus said:

Quebecers want to protect their language and culture. The language and culture of Palestinians is identical to that of the Jordanians. Jordan IS Palestine. It was simply sliced off earlier and renamed. Jordanians ARE Palestinians. There is no reason with any logic to it why they shouldn't be put together again. It would be a functioning state with a functioning government and enough resources to actually operate without being an international charity case. The Gaza residents are indistinguishable from the Egyptians who live just across the border - a border, I remind you, which was created by westerners anyway

 

Sharing a language doesn't make you all the same e.g. Canada. Leaving aside the Israeli issue completely, I don't think Jordanians, Palestinians and Egyptians would regard themselves as identical. You can hear the difference between Egyptians and the others even when they speak English. Jordanians and Palestinians represent the boundary between Levantines and Peninsular Arabs; there's considerable overlap but differences as well. 

[Rue]

On 12/17/2017 at 10:50 PM, marcus said:

The Palestinians have given offers, much closer to the 1967, internationally recognized border and Israel has refused. 

There was the Arab League offer, which included full acceptance of Israel and the normalization of ties with Israel that every Israeli prime minister has refused since its signing in 2002.  

 

I am calling this individual out again as an absolute falsehood. There was never any offer by any Palestinian let alone the Arab League to recognize Israel as a Jewish state with ANY borders of any kind.

This is precisely why he provides no sources. He has fabricated an out and out falsehood.

Its time this bullshit came to an end.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Rue

[Rue]

On 12/18/2017 at 12:31 AM, marcus said:

There was no actual map offered at the Camp David talks. 

Abbas had a counter offer to Olmert's proposal which was not accepted. Also, Olmert wanted to relinquish the right of return of what is now over 7,000,000 Palestinian refugees scattered in Gaza, West Bank, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and other places. 

 

What you didn't respond to is the Arab Leagues "Generous Offer".

Another example of bull shit. There were many maps exchanged.

Abbas never made an offer to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. His alleged offer was to consider a state of Israel provided it was not Jewish and took in at minimum sufficient Muslims who had never been born or lived in Israel to turn Israel into a majority Muslim state. That was a joke and still is a joke. The only offer Abbas has put on the table is one that Israel ceases to be a Jewish state and turns into a Muslim majority state with Muslims never born in Israel. The test for these Muslims which Marcus is well aware and won't admit is that its subjective-any Muslim can call themselves a descendant of a "Palestinian" and they must be given automatic Israeli right of return and not just citizenship but LAND.

In Abbas' idiotic semantic attempt to extinguish Israel as a Jewish state he has openly stated 250,000 non Israeli ultra orthodox Jews who do not want to live in Israel and may not even recognize the state that they must leave for Europe as well as the millions of Israeli Jews who would be displaced by as Marcus says up to 7 million Palestinians.

The Arab League has never made an offer to recognize Israel as a Jewish state-its offer is also contingent on any Muslim claiming to be a Palestinian the right of automatic citizenship and land ownership in Israel.

Marcus does not have the integrity to tell the truth and disclose any offer is not to recognize a Jewish state but only a Muslim majority state that would replace Israel.

He plays the usual idiot game that he can pretend  recognizing a Muslim majority Israel state that would displace millions of Israeli Jews and leave them homeless is reasonable.

Bullshit. Absolute bullshit. Marcus does not and will die  before it ever comes from his extremist position that a Jewish state can exist in Israel. Its a hatred and religious belief he was born with and will die with and with that kind of entrenched hatred the position Michael Harder poses as the great white missionary come to listen and develop insight from the disputing factions is shown for what it is a joke.

People born with this kind of entrenched religious bullshit don't change. They are interested in one thing-their thing. You might have a chance with their children or grandchildren but not the Marcus' of the world who feel divinely appointed by Allah and Muhammed to deliver the world from Jews.

 

[Rue]

On 12/16/2017 at 12:42 PM, SpankyMcFarland said:

The US  is supposed to be an honest broker here, a ref between the two sides. This concession is like the ref giving one side a penalty shot for no reason whatsoever. In soccer, you'd assume the ref was on the take if this happened. I can see no good reason beyond internal US politics for this move. Even the Saudis couldn't support it. 

And you think the Saudis are a credible party with no vested interest in what the outcome should be? Even the Saudis? Right.

Also there is no internal US political move. Trump is sticking to a campaign pledge. As well his offer does not rule out a Palestinian capital in Jerusalem.

[Rue]

On 12/16/2017 at 12:49 PM, SpankyMcFarland said:

All tribes celebrate their warriors. We do. The Israelis do. 

Bullshit.  You know nothing about the IDF or its soldiers or their culture. You spew crap. The IDF and the culture of the Israel armed forces does not celebrate war and never has. Go find out why before you spew out horsehit you make up.

[SpankyMcFarland]

14 minutes ago, Rue said:

Bullshit.  You know nothing about the IDF or its soldiers or their culture. You spew crap. The IDF and the culture of the Israel armed forces does not celebrate war and never has. Go find out why before you spew out horsehit you make up.

You didn't read my post correctly. I said all tribes celebrate their warriors. 

You may need to take a break from this forum given the tone of your post. 

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

18 minutes ago, Rue said:

And you think the Saudis are a credible party with no vested interest in what the outcome should be? Even the Saudis? Right.

Also there is no internal US political move. Trump is sticking to a campaign pledge. As well his offer does not rule out a Palestinian capital in Jerusalem.

Yes even the Saudis who are anxious to be friendly with Israel at the moment given their conflict with Iran. 

[Rue]

2 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Yes even the Saudis who are anxious to be friendly with Israel at the moment given their conflict with Iran. 

Saudi Arabia is the caretaker of all Muslims and the holiest of its cities Mecca. This means it can do nothing ever to acknowledge Israel as a Jewish state. From a practical perspective it may have interests that at times coincide with Israel's in regards to Iran but it finances extremist Sunni Muslims who detest Israel as much as they detest Iran.

Saudi Arabia is no friend of Israel and never was. Its a your enemy is my enemy aquaintance.

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 2017-12-18 at 1:55 AM, eyeball said:

I think Palestine should be located in Europe. That's where responsibility for Palestinian dispossession lays. You break it you own it I say.

Kent and Normandy would be a nice start. They're all the same over there anyway. 

[Rue]

11 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

You didn't read my post correctly. I said all tribes celebrate their warriors. 

You may need to take a break from this forum given the tone of your post. 

 

You stated and I quote:

"All tribes celebrate their warriors. We do. The Israelis do."

Stop denying the bullshit you stated. Israelis  don't celebrate war and therefore their warriors. You have no clue about Israeli culture and what it in fact celebrates and what it shuns.

Israel doesn't celebrate warriors. It celebrates the will to be free and overcome those who would deny Jews the right of existence. It does not hero worship its soldiers. You'd know that if you had lived or spoke to an Israeli. You never have-you assume.

Israeli soldiers do not welcome attention or personality cults and they shun them. In fact Moishe Dayan and  Ariel Sharon were openly criticized for their egos by all sides in a non political and distinctly military way. There is no bravado, macho code with an Israeli soldier. There's ho hero worship or celebration of warriors. Everyone in Israel is drafted and serves from 18 to 60.

That's nothing to celebrate. Its a burden, a bloody burden no one in Israel wants but must carry.

 

 

Edited December 19, 2017 by Rue

[dre]

11 minutes ago, Rue said:

I am calling this individual out again as an absolute falsehood. There was never any offer by any Palestinian let alone the Arab League to recognize Israel as a Jewish state with ANY borders of any kind.

This is precisely why he provides no sources. He has fabricated an out and out falsehood.

Its time this bullshit came to an end.

You're setting up an impossible scenario... It makes no difference if Palestinians recognize a jewish state, or if Israelis recognize a palestinian muslim state.  What is important is that they simply recognize each other as nations with borders and respect those borders.

[Argus]

3 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

One reason would be that the government has always rejected the Apartheid analogy as slanderous. In the Bennett model, you will have de facto Bantustans surrounded by the Israeli state whose inhabitants have no rights in the state. 

I didn't mean a state with enclaves but not wanting Arabs/Muslims. Israel is already under a demographic sword. Muslims are way outbreeding them. Their percentage of the Israeli population continues to rise. The only reason it's not rising faster is because of Israel's crazy Haradim sect. The problem with the Harademi is they're less than useless as citizens. They don't work. They don't fight. They don't even acknowledge Israel's existence, though they certainly collect welfare.

It does NOT need other territories with a fast growing Muslim population. Eventually it needs to either pull the settlements out in exchange for some deal, or expel all the Palestinians, which would be somewhat difficult and probably result in another localized war.

And before anyone rejects the latter possibility with gasps of outrage, recall that most of the Muslim nations surrounding Israel expelled all, or almost all their Jews, and nobody much cares now. Assuming they much cared when it happened.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Argus

[GostHacked]

On 12/17/2017 at 3:16 PM, Bonam said:

Most reasonable people support a two state solution.

The real question is exactly what land a future Palestinian state would exist on.

Personally, I think that besides Gaza and the West Bank, some additional territory should be contributed to any such future state from Egypt, Jordan, and maybe even a bit from Lebanon and Syria. All of these states are the homelands of what are now considered the Palestinian people, and yet they find themselves barred from citizenship and confined to refugee camps in those states, and often treated worse by those states than they are by Israel. Besides that, even if the Palestinians got as much of the West Bank and East Jerusalem as they could possibly hope to get, it's still not enough to form a viable state, more territory is needed. 

Interesting notion of taking away from someone else to give to them. Was that not how Israel was created?