What should Israel do?

[Jayjay]

The context here was no West Bank, but Israel proper, and the explusion of Arabs during the 1948 war.

I will admit that some of the Arabs were driven out in 1948, but most left of their own accord to allow the Arab armies to destroy the Jewish State. While about 700,000 Arabs were displaced in 1948 an equal number of Jews were displaced from Arab lands, which you don't give a crap about.

Doesn't change the fact that the founding of Israel is based on ethnic cleansing.

 

[Jayjay]

It's simple you read and care about what you want. Your hatred of Israel has burned your eyes, The 1948 Partition plan that allowed for Israel to declare statehood also allowed for Palestine to declare statehood. But the Arabs rejected the partition plan and opted for war. This is not a parallel to 1967. Nice try, but again, you couldn't find a fact in a whirlwind. The idea that Jordan had a claim to the land is false. Peddle that stuff somewhere else. Please read up on the 1948 Partition plan a subject where your knowledge is lacking at best

The partition plan was only a plan, adn I'm well familiar with it as it has been discussed a dozen times before in this forum. It was in no way a fair deal, but lobbied by the Zionist movement who had the ear of Western nations. Look at the map:

Now consider that the Jewish state was at the time, only 51% Jewish. The Arab state was 90% Arab. What does that tell you? The boundaries of the state were gerrymandered to create a maximal Jewish state, and it still had to be in three pieces with two choke points. Furthermore, there was no demographic reason at all to grant the Negev desert and access to the red sea eclusively to the Jewish state. In short, the partition plan was incredibly lopsisded in favor of Jews versus Arabs. It's no wonder it was reected, and it was the Arabs prerogative to reject the plan... it requires both parties to agree to. Besides, the Jews had no intention of adhering to those borders to begin with.

That particular offer was only about Golan, Sinai and Gaza. Check our sources.

I have checked my sources. The offered to negotiate. While agree they NEVER would have given back Jerusalem, everything else would have been negotiable, that's why they are called negotiations.

Q.E.D. Israel did not offer the entire West Bank and Jerusalem back, so your original claim was incorrect.

Besides, in 1948 the Arabs had offered to negotiate too when they rejected the partition plan. Israel rejected any negotiation then and declared independence anyway. Why the double standard?

As would happen with most countries in the world if they were to suddenly disband their military. If Egypt, Jordan, and Syria had laid down their arms sometime between 1948 and 1967, Israel would have no doubt conquered large parts of their lands also.

That's total crap. Israel would have no interest in conquering all of the Arab world

They have demonstrably conquered Golan, most of West Bank, and tried to conquer southern parts of Lebanon, Sinai, and Gaza. And that is in the real world, not in some hypothetical scenario where there would no resistance whatsoever. By removing any reasonable resistance, you are basically assuming that anyone with a gun could show up and do whatever he wants. For your scenario it would mean that Hamas and Islamic Jihad militants would take over Israel. In early 19th century it would have meant that the Jewish terror groups would have cleared large parts of Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria to make way for their Jewish state. But that kidn of situation would never happen, and that's why such hypotheticals are utterly pointless.

 

[untermensche]

Hamas has never recognized Israel and has not changed it's charter. Hence we are having war.

Israel has never recognized the right of Palestinians to a sovereign nation. Has never recognized the basic human rights of millions.

Thus we have decades of oppression and theft.

 

[untermensche]

The context here was no West Bank, but Israel proper, and the explusion of Arabs during the 1948 war.

I will admit that some of the Arabs were driven out in 1948, but most left of their own accord to allow the Arab armies to destroy the Jewish State. While about 700,000 Arabs were displaced in 1948 an equal number of Jews were displaced from Arab lands, which you don't give a crap about.

They didn't leave on their own accord. It was a war zone. They left for safety.

And were illegally prevented from returning. A crime Israel has never paid for.

 

[HaRaAYaH]

The partition plan was only a plan, adn I'm well familiar with it as it has been discussed a dozen times before in this forum. It was in no way a fair deal, but lobbied by the Zionist movement who had the ear of Western nations. Look at the map:

So, now it wasn't a fair deal. It was the deal the world offered. The Palestinian Arabs didn't take it. They preferred to wipe the Jews out. They lost. I hate to say it, but life is not fair, tough shit. They have had numerous opportunities to get their own state. They want it all and won't settle for anything less. So they have the same choices now as they did then. Make a deal or fight on. They choose to fight on. If that's what they want, then fuck them. They will either get strong enough to take the land back, make a deal with Israel or continue to suffer. To live is to choose. It's up to them

Now consider that the Jewish state was at the time, only 51% Jewish. The Arab state was 90% Arab. What does that tell you? The boundaries of the state were gerrymandered to create a maximal Jewish state, and it still had to be in three pieces with two choke points. Furthermore, there was no demographic reason at all to grant the Negev desert and access to the red sea eclusively to the Jewish state. In short, the partition plan was incredibly lopsisded in favor of Jews versus Arabs. It's no wonder it was reected, and it was the Arabs prerogative to reject the plan... it requires both parties to agree to. Besides, the Jews had no intention of adhering to those borders to begin with.

You are right it was their prerogative to reject the offer and go to war and to suffer the consequences of doing that. That's why they are fucked now. Since it hasn't worked in 40 years and more of them die and suffer every day, that's their problem. Maybe they should take a different path. You know that saying about insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result...... As for making a Jewish State, after the Nazi's wiped out 66% of world Jewry, which by the way was a Genocide. There was Jewish State formed so that would not happen again. If you don't like that well you know what you can do.

That particular offer was only about Golan, Sinai and Gaza. Check our sources.

I have checked my sources. The offered to negotiate. While agree they NEVER would have given back Jerusalem, everything else would have been negotiable, that's why they are called negotiations.

Q.E.D. Israel did not offer the entire West Bank and Jerusalem back, so your original claim was incorrect.

I already said they would not give back Jerusalem. Nobody goes into negotiations with their final offer. They still could have declared state hood and formed a country. My the world would be different.....

Besides, in 1948 the Arabs had offered to negotiate too when they rejected the partition plan. Israel rejected any negotiation then and declared independence anyway. Why the double standard?

Glad I wasn't drinking a hot beverage when I read that. I would have spit it out all over my monitor. You would be right if they went to the UN or declared statehood or did anything but attack Israel and attempt to get all the land for themselves. No matter how much acid you take you can't make your hallucinations into reality. That's an offer to negotiate? In what world, on what planet? Not this one. You and three other flakes think attacking is a method of negotiation.

 

[HaRaAYaH]

Hamas has never recognized Israel and has not changed it's charter. Hence we are having war.

Israel has never recognized the right of Palestinians to a sovereign nation. Has never recognized the basic human rights of millions. Thus we have decades of oppression and theft.

Edited

"Before Israel proceeds with the roadmap, it would be appropriate to reach new U.S.-Israeli understandings about the future direction of the peace process. In the short term, Israel's construction of the separation fence should not become an issue in U.S.-Israel relations. The fence is a military barrier; Israel's right to make its own judgment about how best to protect its security needs should be respected. Israel will still retain settlements and conduct military operations on both sides of the fence. Nonetheless, the separation fence could evolve over time into a permanent political border, if the Palestinians fail to seriously enter into a negotiating process with Israel. But the fence does not necessarily have to become a final border should the parties agree to other boundaries. In the longer term, Israel's right to defensible borders ought to be acknowledged by the Bush administration. Should the roadmap to a Palestinian State be implemented, then an appropriate quid pro quo for the establishment of a Palestinian State (with certain security restrictions) would be defensible borders for Israel. The details of what constitutes those defensible borders should be worked out by the Bush administration and the Sharon government, before the roadmap proceeds to its next stage."

Dore Gold, PhD, President of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, in a June 15-July 1, 2003 Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs article titled "Defensible Borders for Israel,

"If given the opportunity, the Palestinians can progress toward democracy. They have a strong middle class. They have special business opportunities in the free world. Palestinians are adroit observers of Israel and understand the functioning of democracy. The Palestinian diaspora is well educated. All of these factors provide hope for a speedier transition... Israel has a special interest in Palestinian democracy because only with democratic development among Palestinians and in the Arab world will Israel enjoy peace and stability... If a Palestinian democracy developed, then a Palestinian State would not be dangerous. As I said many years ago, it is very important that the depth of our concessions match the depth of democracy on the other side."

Natan Sharansky, former Israeli Knesset Member, in a Winter 2005 Middle East Quarterly article titled "Peace Will Only Come after Freedom and Democracy

"The Government of Israel extends to the Government of the United States the following assurances: a. The Israeli government remains committed to the two-state solution - Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and security - as the key to peace in the Middle East. b. The Israeli government remains committed to the Roadmap as the only route to achieving the two-state solution."

Dov Weisglass, Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor to former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, in an Apr. 14, 2004 letter to then US National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice

For Israel to remain a Jewish state, both morally and demographically, it needs a Palestinian State. Today, 4.7 million Jews and 4 million Arabs live between the Mediterranean and the River Jordan. Without two separate states, a binational state will come into being, to the great frustration of the two peoples."

Shimon Peres, Ninth President of Israel, in a May 2, 1998 Le Monde Diplomatique article titled "Why Israel Needs a Palestinian State

"Their most basic demand is the recognition that the Palestinian people constitutes a political entity whose collective existence deserves political expression as a state... We can't expect them to agree that only the Jews should have a state while the Palestinian Arabs are eligible only for autonomy as a political body under the auspices of Israel... Israel must learn a lesson from the revolution in the world's political thinking... A bad agreement is better than none at all. By its very existence, an agreement will give rise to elements that diminish distrust and create parties with vested interests in the perpetuation of the agreement, as nightmare memories of the previous situation hover in the background... Israel faces a moment of truth, in the full sense of the word. My only message is this: Let us begin to think about our situation seriously. I am still optimistic about the possibility of an agreement."

Yehoshafat Harkabi, PhD, former Major General of the Israel Defense Force General Staff and Chief of Military Intelligence, in an Apr. 1988 Journal of Palestine Studies article titled "A Policy for the Moment of Truth,

"I think that during the mid 90s Israelis and Palestinians experienced a glimpse of the atmosphere a peace agreement between the two peoples would create. Unfortunately, the cycle of violence that started on September 2000 undermined severely the trust between the two peoples. Nevertheless, I can tell the Palestinians and the Israelis that they should not give up hope. There is no real alternative to the two state solution that will bring peace and stability to our region. The two sides should not give up on their partners for peace but rather strengthen them."

ossi Beilin, PhD, Member of the Knesset and Chairman of the Meretz-Yachad party, in a July 28, 2004 Ha'aretz article titled "Q&A with Yahad leader Yossi Beilin

Indeed, in line with the Clinton proposals, the Taba talks, the Roadmap, the Arab League initiative, and the detailed Geneva model, there has been a broad consensus that the objective of the current opening is to bring an end to the occupation and to oversee the consolidation of a viable Palestinian State alongside Israel. The mechanism to achieve this goal is full-fledged negotiations leading to a final status agreement which will formally terminate the conflict.

Naomi Chazan, PhD, Deputy Speaker of the Israeli Knesset, in a May 17, 2005 Al-Hayat article titled "Promote Negotiations or Abandon the Two-State Solution

The historic compromise between Israel and Palestine is based on the principle of 'Two States for Two Peoples.' The State of Palestine is designed to embody the historic personality of the Palestinian-Arab people and the State of Israel is designed to embody the historic personality of the Israeli-Jewish people, with the Arab citizens of Israel, who constitute a fifth of all Israeli citizens, being full partners in the state. It is clear that the return of millions of Palestinian refugees to the State of Israel would completely change the character of the state, contrary to the intentions of its founders and most of its citizens. It would abolish the principle of Two States for Two Peoples, on which the demand for a Palestinian State is based. All this leads to the conclusion that most of the refugees who opt for return will find their place in the State of Palestine. As Palestinian citizens they will be able to build their life there, subject to the laws and decisions of their government.

Uri Avnery, former Knesset Member, in a Jan. 19, 2001 Media Monitors Network article titled "The Right of Return

In order to ensure that we have a Jewish homeland, we cannot continue to control those territories where there is a Palestinian majority. We must as soon as possible lay down a clear-cut border that will ensure a Jewish majority within the state of Israel...The only solution now is two states -- one Jewish, one Palestinian.

Ehud Olmert, LLB, Israeli Prime Minister and Chairman of the Kadima Party, in a transcript of a Jan. 24, 2006 speech titled "Speech at the annual Herzliya Conference in Israel

Seven months ago, my Government approved the Roadmap to peace, based on President George Bush's June 2002 speech. This is a balanced program for phased progress toward peace, to which both Israel and the Palestinians committed themselves. A full and genuine implementation of the program is the best way to achieve true peace. The Roadmap is the only political plan accepted by Israel, the Palestinians, the Americans and a majority of the international community. We are willing to proceed toward its implementation: two states Israel and a Palestinian State living side by side in tranquility, security and peace.

Ariel Sharon, late Prime Minister of Israel, in a Dec. 18, 2003 speech transcript titled "Address by PM Ariel Sharon at the Fourth Herzliya Conference Nope, those fuckin Israeli's never recognize the right of Palestinians to their own state. I just made up all of the above quotes just prove you are so biased you couldn't see a tree in a forest.

 

[tupac chopra]

Israel should do what Germany did. Admit everything, allow it to be documented. Seek reconciliation.
To quote Johan Galtung. ."Germany is the only major perpetrator country that has fully engaged in reconciliation."

Johan Galtung on his father, Nazis, and Reconciliation

 

[untermensche]

Israel has never recognized the right of Palestinians to a sovereign nation. Has never recognized the basic human rights of millions. Thus we have decades of oppression and theft.

Edited

"Before Israel proceeds with the roadmap, it would be appropriate to reach new U.S.-Israeli understandings about the future direction of the peace process. In the short term, Israel's construction of the separation fence should not become an issue in U.S.-Israel relations. The fence is a military barrier; Israel's right to make its own judgment about how best to protect its security needs should be respected. Israel will still retain settlements and conduct military operations on both sides of the fence. Nonetheless, the separation fence could evolve over time into a permanent political border, if the Palestinians fail to seriously enter into a negotiating process with Israel. But the fence does not necessarily have to become a final border should the parties agree to other boundaries. In the longer term, Israel's right to defensible borders ought to be acknowledged by the Bush administration. Should the roadmap to a Palestinian State be implemented, then an appropriate quid pro quo for the establishment of a Palestinian State (with certain security restrictions) would be defensible borders for Israel. The details of what constitutes those defensible borders should be worked out by the Bush administration and the Sharon government, before the roadmap proceeds to its next stage."

Dore Gold, PhD, President of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, in a June 15-July 1, 2003 Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs article titled "Defensible Borders for Israel,

"If given the opportunity, the Palestinians can progress toward democracy. They have a strong middle class. They have special business opportunities in the free world. Palestinians are adroit observers of Israel and understand the functioning of democracy. The Palestinian diaspora is well educated. All of these factors provide hope for a speedier transition... Israel has a special interest in Palestinian democracy because only with democratic development among Palestinians and in the Arab world will Israel enjoy peace and stability... If a Palestinian democracy developed, then a Palestinian State would not be dangerous. As I said many years ago, it is very important that the depth of our concessions match the depth of democracy on the other side."

Natan Sharansky, former Israeli Knesset Member, in a Winter 2005 Middle East Quarterly article titled "Peace Will Only Come after Freedom and Democracy

"The Government of Israel extends to the Government of the United States the following assurances: a. The Israeli government remains committed to the two-state solution - Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and security - as the key to peace in the Middle East. b. The Israeli government remains committed to the Roadmap as the only route to achieving the two-state solution."

Dov Weisglass, Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor to former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, in an Apr. 14, 2004 letter to then US National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice

For Israel to remain a Jewish state, both morally and demographically, it needs a Palestinian State. Today, 4.7 million Jews and 4 million Arabs live between the Mediterranean and the River Jordan. Without two separate states, a binational state will come into being, to the great frustration of the two peoples."

Shimon Peres, Ninth President of Israel, in a May 2, 1998 Le Monde Diplomatique article titled "Why Israel Needs a Palestinian State

"Their most basic demand is the recognition that the Palestinian people constitutes a political entity whose collective existence deserves political expression as a state... We can't expect them to agree that only the Jews should have a state while the Palestinian Arabs are eligible only for autonomy as a political body under the auspices of Israel... Israel must learn a lesson from the revolution in the world's political thinking... A bad agreement is better than none at all. By its very existence, an agreement will give rise to elements that diminish distrust and create parties with vested interests in the perpetuation of the agreement, as nightmare memories of the previous situation hover in the background... Israel faces a moment of truth, in the full sense of the word. My only message is this: Let us begin to think about our situation seriously. I am still optimistic about the possibility of an agreement."

Yehoshafat Harkabi, PhD, former Major General of the Israel Defense Force General Staff and Chief of Military Intelligence, in an Apr. 1988 Journal of Palestine Studies article titled "A Policy for the Moment of Truth,

"I think that during the mid 90s Israelis and Palestinians experienced a glimpse of the atmosphere a peace agreement between the two peoples would create. Unfortunately, the cycle of violence that started on September 2000 undermined severely the trust between the two peoples. Nevertheless, I can tell the Palestinians and the Israelis that they should not give up hope. There is no real alternative to the two state solution that will bring peace and stability to our region. The two sides should not give up on their partners for peace but rather strengthen them."

ossi Beilin, PhD, Member of the Knesset and Chairman of the Meretz-Yachad party, in a July 28, 2004 Ha'aretz article titled "Q&A with Yahad leader Yossi Beilin

Indeed, in line with the Clinton proposals, the Taba talks, the Roadmap, the Arab League initiative, and the detailed Geneva model, there has been a broad consensus that the objective of the current opening is to bring an end to the occupation and to oversee the consolidation of a viable Palestinian State alongside Israel. The mechanism to achieve this goal is full-fledged negotiations leading to a final status agreement which will formally terminate the conflict.

Naomi Chazan, PhD, Deputy Speaker of the Israeli Knesset, in a May 17, 2005 Al-Hayat article titled "Promote Negotiations or Abandon the Two-State Solution

The historic compromise between Israel and Palestine is based on the principle of 'Two States for Two Peoples.' The State of Palestine is designed to embody the historic personality of the Palestinian-Arab people and the State of Israel is designed to embody the historic personality of the Israeli-Jewish people, with the Arab citizens of Israel, who constitute a fifth of all Israeli citizens, being full partners in the state. It is clear that the return of millions of Palestinian refugees to the State of Israel would completely change the character of the state, contrary to the intentions of its founders and most of its citizens. It would abolish the principle of Two States for Two Peoples, on which the demand for a Palestinian State is based. All this leads to the conclusion that most of the refugees who opt for return will find their place in the State of Palestine. As Palestinian citizens they will be able to build their life there, subject to the laws and decisions of their government.

Uri Avnery, former Knesset Member, in a Jan. 19, 2001 Media Monitors Network article titled "The Right of Return

In order to ensure that we have a Jewish homeland, we cannot continue to control those territories where there is a Palestinian majority. We must as soon as possible lay down a clear-cut border that will ensure a Jewish majority within the state of Israel...The only solution now is two states -- one Jewish, one Palestinian.

Ehud Olmert, LLB, Israeli Prime Minister and Chairman of the Kadima Party, in a transcript of a Jan. 24, 2006 speech titled "Speech at the annual Herzliya Conference in Israel

Seven months ago, my Government approved the Roadmap to peace, based on President George Bush's June 2002 speech. This is a balanced program for phased progress toward peace, to which both Israel and the Palestinians committed themselves. A full and genuine implementation of the program is the best way to achieve true peace. The Roadmap is the only political plan accepted by Israel, the Palestinians, the Americans and a majority of the international community. We are willing to proceed toward its implementation: two states Israel and a Palestinian State living side by side in tranquility, security and peace.

Ariel Sharon, late Prime Minister of Israel, in a Dec. 18, 2003 speech transcript titled "Address by PM Ariel Sharon at the Fourth Herzliya Conference Nope, those fuckin Israeli's never recognize the right of Palestinians to their own state. I just made up all of the above quotes just prove you are so biased you couldn't see a tree in a forest.

All of this is what we call "lip service". And some of them are just an expression of racist fears that Israel will have to incorporate the Palestinians into a one-state solution.

Not one of those is an official government recognition of the right of the Palestinians to a state. Many individual Israeli's of course think they should have one.

Show me the government document that recognizes the right of the Palestinians to a state and explains where that state should be.

Official Israeli government policy allows the taking of more and more land and makes a Palestinian state less and less likely. If the Israeli government actually thought the Palestinians had a right to a state they wouldn't allow the illegal expansion of the settlements.

And of course I can provide quotes from Hamas leaders who have said they also support a two-state solution.

 

[HaRaAYaH]

Edited

"Before Israel proceeds with the roadmap, it would be appropriate to reach new U.S.-Israeli understandings about the future direction of the peace process. In the short term, Israel's construction of the separation fence should not become an issue in U.S.-Israel relations. The fence is a military barrier; Israel's right to make its own judgment about how best to protect its security needs should be respected. Israel will still retain settlements and conduct military operations on both sides of the fence. Nonetheless, the separation fence could evolve over time into a permanent political border, if the Palestinians fail to seriously enter into a negotiating process with Israel. But the fence does not necessarily have to become a final border should the parties agree to other boundaries. In the longer term, Israel's right to defensible borders ought to be acknowledged by the Bush administration. Should the roadmap to a Palestinian State be implemented, then an appropriate quid pro quo for the establishment of a Palestinian State (with certain security restrictions) would be defensible borders for Israel. The details of what constitutes those defensible borders should be worked out by the Bush administration and the Sharon government, before the roadmap proceeds to its next stage."

Dore Gold, PhD, President of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, in a June 15-July 1, 2003 Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs article titled "Defensible Borders for Israel,

"If given the opportunity, the Palestinians can progress toward democracy. They have a strong middle class. They have special business opportunities in the free world. Palestinians are adroit observers of Israel and understand the functioning of democracy. The Palestinian diaspora is well educated. All of these factors provide hope for a speedier transition... Israel has a special interest in Palestinian democracy because only with democratic development among Palestinians and in the Arab world will Israel enjoy peace and stability... If a Palestinian democracy developed, then a Palestinian State would not be dangerous. As I said many years ago, it is very important that the depth of our concessions match the depth of democracy on the other side."

Natan Sharansky, former Israeli Knesset Member, in a Winter 2005 Middle East Quarterly article titled "Peace Will Only Come after Freedom and Democracy

"The Government of Israel extends to the Government of the United States the following assurances: a. The Israeli government remains committed to the two-state solution - Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and security - as the key to peace in the Middle East. b. The Israeli government remains committed to the Roadmap as the only route to achieving the two-state solution."

Dov Weisglass, Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor to former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, in an Apr. 14, 2004 letter to then US National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice

For Israel to remain a Jewish state, both morally and demographically, it needs a Palestinian State. Today, 4.7 million Jews and 4 million Arabs live between the Mediterranean and the River Jordan. Without two separate states, a binational state will come into being, to the great frustration of the two peoples."

Shimon Peres, Ninth President of Israel, in a May 2, 1998 Le Monde Diplomatique article titled "Why Israel Needs a Palestinian State

"Their most basic demand is the recognition that the Palestinian people constitutes a political entity whose collective existence deserves political expression as a state... We can't expect them to agree that only the Jews should have a state while the Palestinian Arabs are eligible only for autonomy as a political body under the auspices of Israel... Israel must learn a lesson from the revolution in the world's political thinking... A bad agreement is better than none at all. By its very existence, an agreement will give rise to elements that diminish distrust and create parties with vested interests in the perpetuation of the agreement, as nightmare memories of the previous situation hover in the background... Israel faces a moment of truth, in the full sense of the word. My only message is this: Let us begin to think about our situation seriously. I am still optimistic about the possibility of an agreement."

Yehoshafat Harkabi, PhD, former Major General of the Israel Defense Force General Staff and Chief of Military Intelligence, in an Apr. 1988 Journal of Palestine Studies article titled "A Policy for the Moment of Truth,

"I think that during the mid 90s Israelis and Palestinians experienced a glimpse of the atmosphere a peace agreement between the two peoples would create. Unfortunately, the cycle of violence that started on September 2000 undermined severely the trust between the two peoples. Nevertheless, I can tell the Palestinians and the Israelis that they should not give up hope. There is no real alternative to the two state solution that will bring peace and stability to our region. The two sides should not give up on their partners for peace but rather strengthen them."

ossi Beilin, PhD, Member of the Knesset and Chairman of the Meretz-Yachad party, in a July 28, 2004 Ha'aretz article titled "Q&A with Yahad leader Yossi Beilin

Indeed, in line with the Clinton proposals, the Taba talks, the Roadmap, the Arab League initiative, and the detailed Geneva model, there has been a broad consensus that the objective of the current opening is to bring an end to the occupation and to oversee the consolidation of a viable Palestinian State alongside Israel. The mechanism to achieve this goal is full-fledged negotiations leading to a final status agreement which will formally terminate the conflict.

Naomi Chazan, PhD, Deputy Speaker of the Israeli Knesset, in a May 17, 2005 Al-Hayat article titled "Promote Negotiations or Abandon the Two-State Solution

The historic compromise between Israel and Palestine is based on the principle of 'Two States for Two Peoples.' The State of Palestine is designed to embody the historic personality of the Palestinian-Arab people and the State of Israel is designed to embody the historic personality of the Israeli-Jewish people, with the Arab citizens of Israel, who constitute a fifth of all Israeli citizens, being full partners in the state. It is clear that the return of millions of Palestinian refugees to the State of Israel would completely change the character of the state, contrary to the intentions of its founders and most of its citizens. It would abolish the principle of Two States for Two Peoples, on which the demand for a Palestinian State is based. All this leads to the conclusion that most of the refugees who opt for return will find their place in the State of Palestine. As Palestinian citizens they will be able to build their life there, subject to the laws and decisions of their government.

Uri Avnery, former Knesset Member, in a Jan. 19, 2001 Media Monitors Network article titled "The Right of Return

In order to ensure that we have a Jewish homeland, we cannot continue to control those territories where there is a Palestinian majority. We must as soon as possible lay down a clear-cut border that will ensure a Jewish majority within the state of Israel...The only solution now is two states -- one Jewish, one Palestinian.

Ehud Olmert, LLB, Israeli Prime Minister and Chairman of the Kadima Party, in a transcript of a Jan. 24, 2006 speech titled "Speech at the annual Herzliya Conference in Israel

Seven months ago, my Government approved the Roadmap to peace, based on President George Bush's June 2002 speech. This is a balanced program for phased progress toward peace, to which both Israel and the Palestinians committed themselves. A full and genuine implementation of the program is the best way to achieve true peace. The Roadmap is the only political plan accepted by Israel, the Palestinians, the Americans and a majority of the international community. We are willing to proceed toward its implementation: two states Israel and a Palestinian State living side by side in tranquility, security and peace.

Ariel Sharon, late Prime Minister of Israel, in a Dec. 18, 2003 speech transcript titled "Address by PM Ariel Sharon at the Fourth Herzliya Conference Nope, those fuckin Israeli's never recognize the right of Palestinians to their own state. I just made up all of the above quotes just prove you are so biased you couldn't see a tree in a forest.

All of this is what we call "lip service". And some of them are just an expression of racist fears that Israel will have to incorporate the Palestinians into a one-state solution. Not one of those is an official government recognition of the right of the Palestinians to a state. Many individual Israeli's of course think they should have one. Show me the government document that recognizes the right of the Palestinians to a state and explains where that state should be. Official Israeli government policy allows the taking of more and more land and makes a Palestinian state less and less likely. If the Israeli government actually thought the Palestinians had a right to a state they wouldn't allow the illegal expansion of the settlements. And of course I can provide quotes from Hamas leaders who have said they also support a two-state solution.

Of course. I didn't expect anything less from you. Te difference is this is mostly Israeli's speaking to other Israeli's. While you will produce exactly zero quotes from Hamas. And for every one your produce I can produce one from this week that says they wont. I expect nothing less from you. If the breaking news from the Middle east came and said Netanyahu walked on Water. You would on here posting in a flash that he couldn't swim. Aside from lay down and die, there is nothing they could do to satisfy you..... So therefore since rational discussion and proof are beyond your limited ability to understand the conflict I will refrain from replying to your inane posts.

 

[HaRaAYaH]

I will admit that some of the Arabs were driven out in 1948, but most left of their own accord to allow the Arab armies to destroy the Jewish State. While about 700,000 Arabs were displaced in 1948 an equal number of Jews were displaced from Arab lands, which you don't give a crap about.

Doesn't change the fact that the founding of Israel is based on ethnic cleansing.

Only in your mind.

 

[Jayjay]

So, now it wasn't a fair deal. It was the deal the world offered. The Palestinian Arabs didn't take it. They preferred to wipe the Jews out. They lost. I hate to say it, but life is not fair, tough shit. They have had numerous opportunities to get their own state.

This is always the answer of the Israeli opologists: might makes right, and its the Arabs own damn fault for not being stronger militarily. The context here was not whether Palestinians should have their own state, it was whether Israel ethnically cleansed the Arabs. What you are saying is not denying the ethnic cleansing, you are merely justifying it.

And even then, the justification you use is silly: fuck the Arabs, because they chose to fight. But the Jews at the time also chose to fight, and had been fighting some time. Fuck the Arabs, because they rejected some plan concocted by European colonialists and lobbied by the Zionist movement. But Israel also never actually accepted the partiton plan borders except as stepping stone. Fuck the Arabs because they were going to wipe out the Jews. But the Jews actually did wipe out consirable Arabs in the lands they conquered. Why the double standard?

Now consider that the Jewish state was at the time, only 51% Jewish. The Arab state was 90% Arab. What does that tell you? The boundaries of the state were gerrymandered to create a maximal Jewish state, and it still had to be in three pieces with two choke points. Furthermore, there was no demographic reason at all to grant the Negev desert and access to the red sea eclusively to the Jewish state. In short, the partition plan was incredibly lopsisded in favor of Jews versus Arabs. It's no wonder it was reected, and it was the Arabs prerogative to reject the plan... it requires both parties to agree to. Besides, the Jews had no intention of adhering to those borders to begin with.

You are right it was their prerogative to reject the offer and go to war and to suffer the consequences of doing that. That's why they are fucked now. Since it hasn't worked in 40 years and more of them die and suffer every day, that's their problem. Maybe they should take a different path. You know that saying about insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result......

Might makes right, eh?

As for making a Jewish State, after the Nazi's wiped out 66% of world Jewry, which by the way was a Genocide. There was Jewish State formed so that would not happen again. If you don't like that well you know what you can do.

One atrocity does not justify another. The Jews wiped out roughly the same proportion of Palestinian Arabs to make room. By your logic, there should be a Palestinian state to make sure this never happens again.

Besides, in 1948 the Arabs had offered to negotiate too when they rejected the partition plan. Israel rejected any negotiation then and declared independence anyway. Why the double standard?

Glad I wasn't drinking a hot beverage when I read that. I would have spit it out all over my monitor. You would be right if they went to the UN or declared statehood or did anything but attack Israel and attempt to get all the land for themselves. No matter how much acid you take you can't make your hallucinations into reality. That's an offer to negotiate? In what world, on what planet? Not this one. You and three other flakes think attacking is a method of negotiation.

It's a historical fact that the Arab response to the partition plan was to continue negotiation, though they even admitted that the only reason was because that would delay the formation of a Jewish state that they found unacceptable. That happened before Israel declared statehood, and before the Arab countries attacked.

The point is, that an offer to "negotiate" does not mean you are conceding what the other party wants. It's exactly the opposite, it means you are rejecting the offer that was made and want to get better terms. Another example: the UN, which you use as authority when it comes to the partition plan has several times made an "offer" that Israel should return all the land and take back the refugees. Israel has flatly rejected all these offers. I am not going to argue whether Israel should have accepted these offers, as they do have some valid reasons for not doing so, but the act of rejectign an offer itself does not constitute a valid reason for the other side to just take what they want by force.

So why should the Arab rejection of the UN partition plan be in any way justify Israeli aggression and expelling 700,000 Arabs to make lebensraum for the Jewish master race?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I will admit that some of the Arabs were driven out in 1948, but most left of their own accord to allow the Arab armies to destroy the Jewish State. While about 700,000 Arabs were displaced in 1948 an equal number of Jews were displaced from Arab lands, which you don't give a crap about.

Please stop making unfounded accusations about what other people do or don't care about. You can't support them, and all they do is inflame the discussion.

Jews who were expelled from Arab countries have the right under UN Resolutions regarding the rights of refugees to return to their homes and properties, just as Palestinians who were forced out of what became Israel have the right to return to theirs. If you want to uphold the rights of Jewish refugees you have to do the same for non-Jewish ones, too.

Turn your argument over.

If you want to uphold the rights of non-Jewish refugees you also have to do the same for Jewish ones.

I don't see you caring about the Jewish ones.

- - - Updated - - -

I will admit that some of the Arabs were driven out in 1948, but most left of their own accord to allow the Arab armies to destroy the Jewish State. While about 700,000 Arabs were displaced in 1948 an equal number of Jews were displaced from Arab lands, which you don't give a crap about.

They didn't leave on their own accord. It was a war zone. They left for safety.

And were illegally prevented from returning. A crime Israel has never paid for.

They had a time machine?

There was no war when most of them left.


And how about the equal number of Jews that were displaced? Or don't you care about them?

 

[Togo]

Several of the Hamas peace plans made provision for Jewish refugees as well as Palestinian ones, on equal and reciprocal terms. It's not a terribly controvertial issue.

 

[Derec]

Hamas peace plans

Hamas peace plan: conquer Israel and kill all the Jews.
What's Arabic for Endlösung?

In the meantime they are shooting rockets from a school.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Several of the Hamas peace plans made provision for Jewish refugees as well as Palestinian ones, on equal and reciprocal terms. It's not a terribly controvertial issue.

[Citation needed]

 

[Arctish]

Please stop making unfounded accusations about what other people do or don't care about. You can't support them, and all they do is inflame the discussion.

Jews who were expelled from Arab countries have the right under UN Resolutions regarding the rights of refugees to return to their homes and properties, just as Palestinians who were forced out of what became Israel have the right to return to theirs. If you want to uphold the rights of Jewish refugees you have to do the same for non-Jewish ones, too.

Turn your argument over.

If you want to uphold the rights of non-Jewish refugees you also have to do the same for Jewish ones.

I don't see you caring about the Jewish ones.

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the Jewish refugees have the right to return to the countries they were expelled from, not the right to take homes from the Palestinians, and therefore their plight does not support the argument you usually make.

I'm pretty sure you remember our conversations about the Jewish refugees who left Algeria and went to France. You might also remember something of the dozens (hundreds?) of times we have discussed the Ukrainian pogroms, the Trail of Tears, the situation in Tibet, the Rwandan genocide, and other atrocities. If you recall, I have always stipulated that the persons doing the ethnic cleansing are the ones who should be held accountable for it, and yes, that means the Cherokee should get their farmland back or be justly compensated for their loss.

If you don't, well there's nothing I can do about that. There are a lot of things we've discussed that you don't seem to remember.

I will admit that some of the Arabs were driven out in 1948, but most left of their own accord to allow the Arab armies to destroy the Jewish State. While about 700,000 Arabs were displaced in 1948 an equal number of Jews were displaced from Arab lands, which you don't give a crap about.

They didn't leave on their own accord. It was a war zone. They left for safety.

And were illegally prevented from returning. A crime Israel has never paid for.

They had a time machine?

There was no war when most of them left.

Please support this claim by providing evidence of when most of the left, and that there was no war at that time. It looks like you are claiming Plan Dalet and the massacre at Deir Yassin happened before the war. Is that it?

And how about the equal number of Jews that were displaced? Or don't you care about them?

Of course people here care about them. But you can't use what happened to Jews to justify doing the exact same thing to non-jews without creating a racist, religiously biased double standard. If it's wrong to expel people at gun-point, it's wrong whether or not the people are Jews.

 

[untermensche]

Of course. I didn't expect anything less from you. Te difference is this is mostly Israeli's speaking to other Israeli's. While you will produce exactly zero quotes from Hamas. And for every one your produce I can produce one from this week that says they wont. I expect nothing less from you. If the breaking news from the Middle east came and said Netanyahu walked on Water. You would on here posting in a flash that he couldn't swim. Aside from lay down and die, there is nothing they could do to satisfy you..... So therefore since rational discussion and proof are beyond your limited ability to understand the conflict I will refrain from replying to your inane posts.

Spoken like a true tyrant.

I asked for an official recognition.

You could not provide one because one doesn't exist.

Official Israeli policy is to steal more and more land from the Palestinians. Not a recognition they have a right to a sovereign state.

 

[untermensche]

They had a time machine?

There was no war when most of them left.

Yes of course, those silly Arabs just abandoned their homes.

And how about the equal number of Jews that were displaced? Or don't you care about them?

What about it? That's a completely separate issue and doesn't involve the Palestinians.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the Jewish refugees have the right to return to the countries they were expelled from, not the right to take homes from the Palestinians, and therefore their plight does not support the argument you usually make.

Both sides lost their property. Most all the Arabs left during peacetime and could take their mobile assets. The Jews mostly fled quickly and thus got out less of their mobile assets.

I'm pretty sure you remember our conversations about the Jewish refugees who left Algeria and went to France. You might also remember something of the dozens (hundreds?) of times we have discussed the Ukrainian pogroms, the Trail of Tears, the situation in Tibet, the Rwandan genocide, and other atrocities. If you recall, I have always stipulated that the persons doing the ethnic cleansing are the ones who should be held accountable for it, and yes, that means the Cherokee should get their farmland back or be justly compensated for their loss.

If you don't, well there's nothing I can do about that. There are a lot of things we've discussed that you don't seem to remember.

And what you are missing is that most of the Palestinians were not cleansed. Simply not allowing enemies to enter your country isn't ethnic cleansing.

Please support this claim by providing evidence of when most of the left, and that there was no war at that time. It looks like you are claiming Plan Dalet and the massacre at Deir Yassin happened before the war. Is that it?

Deir Yassin was caused by the Arabs fighting in civilian attire.

And how about the equal number of Jews that were displaced? Or don't you care about them?

Of course people here care about them. But you can't use what happened to Jews to justify doing the exact same thing to non-jews without creating a racist, religiously biased double standard. If it's wrong to expel people at gun-point, it's wrong whether or not the people are Jews.

A fair solution addresses both sides of the issue. You're only trying to address one side.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes of course, those silly Arabs just abandoned their homes.

The Arab nations advised them to leave. You can't blame Israel for that.

And how about the equal number of Jews that were displaced? Or don't you care about them?

What about it? That's a completely separate issue and doesn't involve the Palestinians.

Except they are two sides of the same coin.