Israel rightfully own the West Bank .

[senojekips]

If you must lower yourself and use insults to try and prove your point you only weaken your argument.

The morals and thought processes of some people are worthy of no more, in fact they are an insult to humanity. Nothing I have said to you is an insult, merely a statement of fact.

Before you go making comments on subjects you obviously know very little about, you need to do some serious historical research into the history of the middle east over the last 150 years. A basic working knowledge of International Law would not go astray either.

 

[MontyB]

The Mideast is full of injustice. One can point all the fault at Israel however much of the neighborhood is filled with blood and hatred. Sunni vs. Shiite, Kurd vs. Iraq's and Turks, Religious persecution of Christians. No dought Israel is heavy handed in it's reprisals and was founded on terrorism against the British. I also wonder about the validity of polls, however I'm sure Israel has many enemy's. If you look at the numbers the Palestinians killed by Israel would be far lower number than those killed by the rebellion in Syria, the in fighting between fractions in Iraq or the Islamic republic of Iran. This does not make the harsh Israeli retaliations right it just points out the violent nature of the neighborhood.
Well open fire.

The world is full of injustice but it is all irrelevant to the Palestinian/Israel issue, people like to roll out the holocaust or the Jews forced out of other Arab countries (some of which were contrived) as a justification for Israels subjugation of the Palestinians and the reality is they they are straw-man arguments.

Any issues Jewish refugees from other Arab countries have is with the countries they emigrated from not the Palestinians, sectarian issues between religions, rebellions in other countries and Iranian executions have nothing what so ever to do with the Palestinians and carry about as much weight in this argument as saying "oh the New Zealand dollar dropped in value lets build a settlement and displace some more Palestinians".

If you want to discuss this issue seriously and genuinely then address the issue of Israel and Palestine and stop trying to justify the ghettoisation of 5 million people based on assumptions about events in unrelated countries.

 

[JOC]

Response

I made no mention of the Holocaust. The British tried to prevent the formation of the Jewish state initially which was formed on terrorism “ King David Hotel”. I suppose you could accuse me of deviating from the core issue of the tread. However I will repeat myself in that the Israeli’s are harsh in their retaliations of any Palestinian action. This could be viewed as a form of terrorism. Your New Zealand argument is not valid as Hamas is supplied by Iran which has committed far more murders than has the IDF. As they say in the army Shit rolls downhill. The Palestinians will not further their cause via terrorism. This does not excuse Israeli excesses. I cannot say whether or not the Israeli could be persuaded to faithfully negotiate for an independent Palestinian state if the attacks stopped? I have read this long and very opinioned tread. It demonstrates the complexity and tempers that exist concerning this issue. A fact is Israel is concerned about the fact that if the west bank became independent the middle of the country is only 9 miles across. Again not justifying this, pointing out what Israel considers to be a security treat.
BTW Monty Senojekips stated that 99% of Mideast issues were related to Israeli-Arab_Palestinian conflict. I provided some that were not, see the reply prior to the one you Quoted.

 

[MontyB]

I made no mention of the Holocaust. The British tried to prevent the formation of the Jewish state initially which was formed on terrorism “ King David Hotel”. I suppose you could accuse me of deviating from the core issue of the tread. However I will repeat myself in that the Israeli’s are harsh in their retaliations of any Palestinian action. This could be viewed as a form of terrorism. Your New Zealand argument is not valid as Hamas is supplied by Iran which has committed far more murders than has the IDF. As they say in the army Shit rolls downhill. The Palestinians will not further their cause via terrorism. This does not excuse Israeli excesses. I cannot say whether or not the Israeli could be persuaded to faithfully negotiate for an independent Palestinian state if the attacks stopped? I have read this long and very opinioned tread. It demonstrates the complexity and tempers that exist concerning this issue. A fact is Israel is concerned about the fact that if the west bank became independent the middle of the country is only 9 miles across. Again not justifying this, pointing out what Israel considers to be a security treat.

And as I pointed out in another thread New Zealand is about 50 meters wide at its narrowest point that does not justify us occupying a chunk of Australia as a buffer zone.

Further to this I would suggest that 9 miles wide or 50 miles wide if the West Bank was included might have stopped the Romans or Assyrians but it will only add about an hour to an armoured column and less than 10 minutes to a fighter jet.
The idea that the West Bank is needed for Israel to be defensible is another straw man as with or without the Palestinian territories Israel is indefensible to modern warfare.

BTW Monty Senojekips stated that 99% of Mideast issues were related to Israeli-Arab_Palestinian conflict. I provided some that were not.

He is entirely correct although I am not so sure about the 99% but the conflict itself has destabilised the entire region and the world in general.

 

[JOC]

And as I pointed out in another thread New Zealand is about 50 meters wide at its narrowest point that does not justify us occupying a chunk of Australia as a buffer zone.

Further to this I would suggest that 9 miles wide or 50 miles wide if the West Bank was included might have stopped the Romans or Assyrians but it will only add about an hour to an armoured column and less than 10 minutes to a fighter jet.
The idea that the West Bank is needed for Israel to be defensible is another straw man as with or without the Palestinian territories Israel is indefensible to modern warfare.


He is entirely correct although I am not so sure about the 99% but the conflict itself has destabilised the entire region and the world in general.

I didn't justify it, I pointed out a stated Israeli concern, there is a difference.

Explain how the 3 examples I pointed out are related to the Israeli conflict? I just don't see this 99% of Mideast conflicts, the area is to complex to make this statement. Yes it is a hot spot that involves superpowers i.e.: US, Russia and has ripples that effect the world.

 

[Yossarian]

I agree whole heartedly that Israel by no means, legal as well as Historical own the West Bank.

I will go on to further mention that Palestine as a whole has failed itself on several occasions to better represent a unified governing council that could at many key points in the last 60 years stalled Israeli occupation.

Both parties are neither sinless. However I would support the immediate halting of Israeli building here as well as incursions into the West bank wholly. That is obviously a no brainer, and should be viewed as a initial step in resolving this deadly ongoing debate that cost lively hoods and more tragically lives and violates the humanity of victims on both sides.

 

[senojekips]

This does not excuse Israeli excesses. I cannot say whether or not the Israeli could be persuaded to faithfully negotiate for an independent Palestinian state if the attacks stopped?

Such is the childish stupidity of your argument that I see you have completely ignored the fact that the Palestinians should not have to negotiate with the Israelis at all, as they, (the Israelis) have no legal or moral reason for occupying Palestine in the first place. No one asked the Dutch, Belgians and French etc., to negotiate with the Nazis who overran their countries during WWII.

All of Israels concerns are bought about by their own actions. They elected to illegally occupy the land of another people, now they whine about the fact that those legitimate owners are resisting this occupation.

If as you claim you have read my posts you would have seen some of the International Laws pertaining to this matter.

 

[dadsgirl]

I agree whole heartedly that Israel by no means, legal as well as Historical own the West Bank.

I will go on to further mention that Palestine as a whole has failed itself on several occasions to better represent a unified governing council that could at many key points in the last 60 years stalled Israeli occupation.

Both parties are neither sinless. However I would support the immediate halting of Israeli building here as well as incursions into the West bank wholly. That is obviously a no brainer, and should be viewed as a initial step in resolving this deadly ongoing debate that cost lively hoods and more tragically lives and violates the humanity of victims on both sides.

Thanks, well put!

 

[senojekips]

Both parties are neither sinless. However I would support the immediate halting of Israeli building here as well as incursions into the West bank wholly. That is obviously a no brainer, and should be viewed as a initial step in resolving this deadly ongoing debate that cost lively hoods and more tragically lives and violates the humanity of victims on both sides.

Please explain to me how you see the Israeli aggressors as "victims" other than as victims of their own illegal actions.

The Palestinians attempting to defend their own country by any means is neither aggression nor illegal they are the victims, NOT the Israelis. Whereas the Israeli actions are all illegal by default as they have no legal nor moral reason to occupy the rightful land of another people and then drive them out of their land and homes.

[SIZE=+1]Israeli Violations of International Law :[/SIZE]

• [SIZE=+2]CREATION OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL (1947-1954)*[/SIZE]
  ​
• 1. ILLEGAL ACQUISITION OF LAND BY FORCE: Israel annexes land occupied by force during 1948 war (lands external to those given by the UN partition plan) (laws & principles violated, international response).
  ​
• 2. FORBIDDING CIVILIANS THE RIGHT TO RETURN TO THEIR HOMES FOLLOWING THE END OF ARMED CONFLICT: Israeli government enacts laws, and employs its military to keep aproximately 750,000 Palestinian Arab civilians from returning to their homes following the end of fighting both in 1948 and in the occupied territories in 1967. Israel then violates UN resolutions ordering them to respect Palestinian's right to return to their homes (laws & principles violated, international response).
  ​
• 3. ILLEGAL POPULATION TRANSFER: Israel settles Israeli citizens in hundreds of Israeli settlements on occupied land not originally given to them in the UN Partition Plan (laws & principles violated, international response).
  ​
• 5. DESTRUCTION OF HOLY PLACES, AND INTERFERING WITH MINISTERS OF RELIGION PERFORMING THEIR RELIGIOUS DUTIES: Israeli forces have destroyed Muslim holy places, and interfered with the religious work of Muslim Imams (ministers) (laws & principles violated, international response).
  ​
• 7. ILLEGAL PRACTICE OF COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT: Israel repeatedly practices collective punishment against Palestinian acts of rebellion wherein an entire community is punished for the actions of a few (laws & principles violated, international response).​
  ​
• [SIZE=+2]ISRAELI STATEHOOD (1948-present)*[/SIZE]
  ​
• 7. ILLEGAL PRACTICE OF COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT: Israel repeatedly practices collective punishment against Palestinian acts of rebellion wherein an entire community is punished for the actions of a few (laws & principles violated, international response).
  ​
• 12. PRACTICE OF RACISM: One of the primary purposes that the European Zionist organizations had for starting the State of Israel was to create a Jewish State, where the Jewish people could find sanctuary, control things, and prosper. This understandably has led to the passage of laws which give special favor throughout Israeli society to the Jewish people over all other people, and especially the native Palestinian Arab people. But giving special favor to one group of people above all other groups based on a criteria like what religion they are is, by definition, a form of racism. And, even though the leaders of the Zionist organizations thought such a policy was absolutely necessary to protect the Jewish people, it is still racism - a philosophy and practice which inevitably leads to terrible injustice and conflict (as we have seen throughout the history of Zionism in Palestine), and which thus must be condemned and prevented no matter what (laws & principles violated, international response).
  ​
• 13. PRACTICE OF APARTHEID: The State of Israel has a formal system of legalized discrimination against Palestinian Arabs which technically fits the official UN definition of Apartheid (laws & principles violated, international response).
  ​
• 17. VIOLATION OF ARAB FAMILY UNITY: In 2003, the Israeli legislature (Knesset) passed legislation that forbade spouses of Arab-Israeli citizens who are in the occupied territories from joining their families in Israel (with exceptions). The overt rationale is security concerns. The hidden reason for this legislation is to help maintain the Jewish demographic majority (laws & principles violated, international response).​
• Continued,...

 

[senojekips]

Israeli Violations of International Law :

CREATION OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL (1947-1954)*


GENERAL ZIONIST/ISRAELI VIOLATIONS*
10. VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS: Israel has significantly violated the human rights of the Palestinian people within Israel with its legalized Apartheid system of discrimination, and in the occupied territories with its system of political oppression, economic exploitation, and inhumane law enforcement practices primarily in response to the Palestinian rebellion against the above oppression and exploitation (laws & principles violated, international response).
11. VIOLATIONS OF UN RESOLUTIONS: Israel has violated 28 resolutions of the United Nations Security Council (which are legally binding on member-nations), and almost 100 resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly (which are not binding, but represent the will and understanding of the international community). And Israel is now in violation of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 2004, condemning the separation wall Israel is building throughout the occupied West Bank (laws & principles violated, international response).
16. PRACTICE OF ETHNIC CLEANSING: The Zionist organizations, before the creation of the State of Israel, and then the Israeli government itself, have practiced many different forms of Ethnic Cleansing since the Zionist first came to Palestine in the early 1900's. The overt claim they rationalize this with is security concerns, but the greater long term reason is concern about maintaining a majority Jewish population so that they can maintain a democratic form of government which they dominate. Ethnic Cleansing is considered to be a severe

 

[JOC]

West Bank

Such is the childish stupidity of your argument that I see you have completely ignored the fact that the Palestinians should not have to negotiate with the Israelis at all, as they, (the Israelis) have no legal or moral reason for occupying Palestine in the first place. No one asked the Dutch, Belgians and French etc., to negotiate with the Nazis who overran their countries during WWII.

All of Israels concerns are bought about by their own actions. They elected to illegally occupy the land of another people, now they whine about the fact that those legitimate owners are resisting this occupation.

If as you claim you have read my posts you would have seen some of the International Laws pertaining to this matter.

I can sympathize with any people that are repressed. However lets be realistic. Right, Wrong or indifferent do you think the Palestinians will ever get a homeland without negotiations? I'm not saying they should have to negotiate, I'm saying how far do you think they will get without negotiations? Do you honestly believe Israel is about to just vacate "regardless of international law"? One can talk in such euphemisms, but are they realistic?

BTW you overlooked every point I made about the heavy handed treatment suffered by the Palestinians because of the IDF?

Should we go back to the days of when Palestine was a colony of the Turks. They just killed or imprisoned any source of unrest (I'm being factious).

Again you have resorted to name calling. Must I continue to remind you that you undermine your argument with this uncultured behavior and you skirted my %99 question a few post ago?

 

[senojekips]

Right, Wrong or indifferent in reality do you think they will ever get a homeland without negotiation? Do you honestly believe Israel is about to just vacate regardless of international law? One can talk in ideal euphemisms. You also overlook every point I have made about the injustices suffered by the Palestinians?

Again you have resorted to name calling. Must I continue to remind you that you undermine your argument with this uncultured behavior.

Only you believe that, to anyone else it is merely telling you what you need to be told.

What gives you the idea that the Zionists are "entitled" to a homeland and more so why should another people have to be thrown off their legitimate homeland to accommodate them. Next you will be telling us that the Baptists want a homeland back in England and have the right to drive out the current population at gunpoint and just take over.

 

[JOC]

mixup

Only you believe that to anyone else it is merely telling you what you need to be told.

What gives you the idea that the Zionists are "entitled" to a homeland and more so why should another people have to be thrown off their legitimate homeland to accommodate them. Next you will be telling us that the Baptists want a homeland back in England and have the right to drive out the current population at gunpoint and just take over.

This is a mix-up. I never said the Palestinians aren't entitled to a homeland. How did you come to this conclusion?
What I said is that with the present situation how do you realistically think they will get a homeland without negotiation? Big difference. One can say oh the Jews (Zionists) came later and should pack up and leave but they aren't going to do this. So to keep saying this is unrealistic "they are not leaving". So the only realistic answer is a negotiated settlement. This is based on the situation at hand, not on any wish to see any further suffering for the Palestinian people.
Your comparison is what you said, not me.

 

[senojekips]

This is a mix-up. I never said the Palestinians aren't entitled to a homeland. How did you come to this conclusion?

Are you thick or just being obtuse? read what I said and not what you'd like to think I said.

What I said is that with the present situation how do you realistically think they will get a homeland without negotiation? Big difference. One can say oh the Jews (Zionists) came later and should pack up and leave but they aren't going to do this

Twenty years ago people like you were saying the same thing about the South African blacks. You totally ignore what the world is capable of.

The Zionists will go, they are going to be out bred in the land they claim as theirs for a start, and even the real Jews (Hasidim) will help push them out of the door. They in turn will live peaceably with the Palestinians as they support their cause. The Palestinians have already reached a defacto relationship with them. Obviously you have not read the posts on this subject.

So the only realistic answer is a negotiated settlement. This is based on the situation at hand, not on any wish to see any further suffering for the Palestinian people.
Your comparison is what you said, not me.

Only the Zionists believe what you say but unfortunately they do not have any leverage with which to bargain. The land they occupy is stolen and even the US is slowly disassociating themselves with the Israelis and moving more towards the Iranians. The truth is becoming undeniable and it coincides with world opinion.

Read the article again about how the US is waking up that their name is being dragged through the mud by the Israelis, not to mention that the israelis have been caught stealing secret US technology and weaponry and selling it to the Chinese. The Israelis are a far bigger threat to the US than almost any of their so called middle eastern "enemies". You haven't read (or understood) a word of this thread, have you?

To resist the theft of that which is yours, you sometimes have to suffer, but that is their choice, totally unlike the crimes committed upon them by an illegal occupier.

 

[MontyB]

One can say oh the Jews (Zionists) came later and should pack up and leave but they aren't going to do this. So to keep saying this is unrealistic "they are not leaving". So the only realistic answer is a negotiated settlement. This is based on the situation at hand, not on any wish to see any further suffering for the Palestinian people.

Out of interest what do you think a negotiated settlement would look like, what is left for the Palestinians to offer up in exchange for a viable state?

If you accept that negotiations are a two way process for example you say 10%, I say 90% and we end up with a compromise at say 50% how do you negotiate when one side has 100% and the other side has nothing?

I read these ideas about negotiations are the only way to go but in my opinion there is one reality and that is that the Palestinians have nothing to negotiate with therefore in reality you can not have negotiations as the whole process requires just one thing and that is for Israel to accept/define the borders of the Palestinian state.

The fact that they will not do that and continue to build settlements indicates that a negotiated settlement is not going to happen as long as Israel thinks it can extract more, the problem for Israel is that once a Palestinian state becomes impossible then there is no choice but for Israel to accept a one state solution and in doing that it can no longer be a "Jewish state" unless of course it chooses to go down the South African line of apartheid.

 

[JOC]

Pressure

Out of interest what do you think a negotiated settlement would look like, what is left for the Palestinians to offer up in exchange for a viable state?

If you accept that negotiations are a two way process for example you say 10%, I say 90% and we end up with a compromise at say 50% how do you negotiate when one side has 100% and the other side has nothing?

I read these ideas about negotiations are the only way to go but in my opinion there is one reality and that is that the Palestinians have nothing to negotiate with therefore in reality you can not have negotiations as the whole process requires just one thing and that is for Israel to accept/define the borders of the Palestinian state.

The fact that they will not do that and continue to build settlements indicates that a negotiated settlement is not going to happen as long as Israel thinks it can extract more, the problem for Israel is that once a Palestinian state becomes impossible then there is no choice but for Israel to accept a one state solution and in doing that it can no longer be a "Jewish state" unless of course it chooses to go down the South African line of apartheid.

The only way would be via international pressure. I.E. the Pope (yes he's a figure head, but he has sway) has invited both sides for peace talks. Yes Camp David failed but these are the type of avenues which the Israeli's can be pressured by the international community particularly the US. One thing the Palestinians have in their favor compared to many other suppressed people is that their blight is widely publicized.

Hamas will never bring Israel to the peace talks and will bring about the opposite effect. They effectively give Israel an excuse not to negotiate. The trouble how about the average Palestinian that is not a terrorist and just wants what is his.

As they become more entrenched in the West Bank it will be all the harder to get them to pull out I agree. However what is your real world solution given the situation at hand? Give each Jew a suitcase and a one way ticket to Madagascar?

I suspect Senojekips will once again object. Hopefully he can refrain from insults - derogatory remarks when he sees a posting that does not march to beat of his drum.

 

[MontyB]

The only way would be via international pressure. I.E. the Pope (yes he's a figure head, but he has sway) has invited both sides for peace talks. Yes Camp David failed but these are the type of avenues which the Israeli's can be pressured by the international community particularly the US. One thing the Palestinians have in their favor compared to many other suppressed people is that their blight is widely publicized.

No offense to Americans reading this but all the US has done is enabled the land grabs, the UN has raised countless resolutions to stop the land grabs and occupation and every one of them has been vetoed by the USA.

As for potential pressure on the Israel by the USA no chance because Israel is the largest campaign donor in American elections, you may vote for them but Israel has paid for them and owns them.

Hamas will never bring Israel to the peace talks and will bring about the opposite effect. They effectively give Israel an excuse not to negotiate. The trouble how about the average Palestinian that is not a terrorist and just wants what is his.

Should Ireland exist as a country after all the IRA don't want peace they want the British out of Ireland?
Hamas is a red herring if you want Hamas stopped the easiest way to do it is by strengthening the Palestinian Authority and allow them to deal with crime as any other police force would.
But as you pointed out Hamas serve Israels aims more than Palestinian ones.

As they become more entrenched in the West Bank it will be all the harder to get them to pull out I agree. However what is your real world solution given the situation at hand? Give each Jew a suitcase and a one way ticket to Madagascar?

Well in the past I have been a huge fan of the two state solution based on the 1967 lines but with land swaps to compensate for settlements that could not be uprooted, this is how most of the international community see the outcome and it is what the Palestinians have asked for.

However as time goes by I am reevaluating my views as the two state solution becomes ever more impossible to implement and now am starting to believe that the only option that will soon be available is a single state solution implemented much in the same way South Africa reintegrated in the 1990s

As for the Madagascar comment wouldn't that just be reenacting the same problems we allowed to develop in the 1940s, besides the 22 million Madagascans may object to losing a chunk of their country.

I see no reason for anyone to leave Israel/Palestine but if they were to do so it should be back to Germany, Poland and Russia where they came from.

I suspect Senojekips will once again object. Hopefully he can refrain from insults - derogatory remarks when he sees a posting that does not march to beat of his drum.

I think you need to stop being so sensitive about what Spike or anyone else says every one has opinions and generally express them in their own way how we react to those opinions is our own problem to be dealt with.

 

[JOC]

No offense to Americans reading this but all the US has done is enabled the land grabs, the UN has raised countless resolutions to stop the land grabs and occupation and every one of them has been vetoed by the USA.

As for potential pressure on the Israel by the USA no chance because Israel is the largest campaign donor in American elections, you may vote for them but Israel has paid for them and owns them.



Should Ireland exist as a country after all the IRA don't want peace they want the British out of Ireland?
Hamas is a red herring if you want Hamas stopped the easiest way to do it is by strengthening the Palestinian Authority and allow them to deal with crime as any other police force would.
But as you pointed out Hamas serve Israels aims more than Palestinian ones.



Well in the past I have been a huge fan of the two state solution based on the 1967 lines but with land swaps to compensate for settlements that could not be uprooted, this is how most of the international community see the outcome and it is what the Palestinians have asked for.

However as time goes by I am reevaluating my views as the two state solution becomes ever more impossible to implement and now am starting to believe that the only option that will soon be available is a single state solution implemented much in the same way South Africa reintegrated in the 1990s

As for the Madagascar comment wouldn't that just be reenacting the same problems we allowed to develop in the 1940s, besides the 22 million Madagascans may object to losing a chunk of their country.

I see no reason for anyone to leave Israel/Palestine but if they were to do so it should be back to Germany, Poland and Russia where they came from.



I think you need to stop being so sensitive about what Spike or anyone else says every one has opinions and generally express them in their own way how we react to those opinions is our own problem to be dealt with.

Yes the US for one has a strong Jewish influence and we know about the effect of special interest groups in the US. I have 1/2 jokingly called it an Oligarchy because of the strong sway of special interest groups in the US. Individuals elect the President, Congress, etc. Once in office the individual is often forgotten for the highest bidder so to speak. Perhaps this is true in many democracies I don't know? Well I've gotten off track.

Monty I was being factious about Madagascar. I like your solution about a single state with equal rights for all. That is likely the only workable solution since it's a win-win. I just wonder if it's workable given the hard feelings in the area?

I disagree. Calling names weakens ones argument. It basically says your discussion isn't strong enough and you must put others down to try and prove - further your point - position.

 

[senojekips]

Hamas will never bring Israel to the peace talks and will bring about the opposite effect. They effectively give Israel an excuse not to negotiate.

Hamas are a legally elected Government and the only reason they were elected is that they were seen by the Palestinian people as the only hope for a political party that would resist the Israeli oppression and murders. They don't want a Quisling Government who just sells them out to their enemies.

The trouble how about the average Palestinian that is not a terrorist and just wants what is his.

Do you realise what you just said?... this has been my argument all along. The Palestinians only want what is legally theirs.

My Gt. gt. Grandfather bought land (presumably from a Turkish landlord) in Palestine in 1854 and moved there with his family, from London in 1856 after the birth of my Gt Grandfather. He lived in harmony with the Palestinians because he didn't steal from them nor murder their women and children to drive them off their land, in fact he employed many of them. It was not until Zionism raised it's ugly head that the trouble started with land theft and refusal to obey the law of the land that my Gt Grandfather decided to get out and most of the family came to Australia c. 1890-5.
Unfortunately the Israelis have made it such that you can't give back the land and possessions of the Palestinians ans still have the Israelis living in their homes and using their land, as they would both be living in the same space, one house two families, one olive grove two owners.

Monty I was being factious about Madagascar. I like your solution about a single state with equal rights for all. That is likely the only workable solution since it's a win-win. I just wonder if it's workable given the hard feelings in the area?

What a lot of rubbish. Win-win you say?...
If I stole everything you owned and treated you and your family like animals, harassing, beating and murdering them whenever it suited me, do you think it would be a win-win if I kept inviting you to discussions to return just a small portion of your own property, at the same time imposing such rediculous claims that you could never possibly agree?

I disagree. Calling names weakens ones argument. It basically says your discussion isn't strong enough and you must put others down to try and prove - further your point - position.

A typical losers excuse, and typical of those who want everything their own way not willing to face facts. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and lays duck eggs, there's a better than even chance it's a duck. You seem to think that unfairness on your behalf is OK so long as you (or your country) get what they want, and who gives a flying fcuk that it supports the oppression and illegal occupation of the land of another people.

 

[JOC]

?

Hamas are a legally elected Government and the only reason they were elected is that they were seen by the Palestinian people as the only hope for a political party that would resist the Israeli oppression and murders. They don't want a Quisling Government who just sells them out to their enemies.
Do you realise what you just said?... this has been my argument all along. The Palestinians only want what is legally theirs.

My Gt. gt. Grandfather bought land (presumably from a Turkish landlord) in Palestine in 1854 and moved there with his family, from London in 1856 after the birth of my Gt Grandfather. He lived in harmony with the Palestinians because he didn't steal from them nor murder their women and children to drive them off their land, in fact he employed many of them. It was not until Zionism raised it's ugly head that the trouble started with land theft and refusal to obey the law of the land that my Gt Grandfather decided to get out and most of the family came to Australia c. 1890-5.
Unfortunately the Israelis have made it such that you can't give back the land and possessions of the Palestinians ans still have the Israelis living in their homes and using their land, as they would both be living in the same space, one house two families, one olive grove two owners.
What a lot of rubbish. Win-win you say?...
If I stole everything you owned and treated you and your family like animals, harassing, beating and murdering them whenever it suited me, do you think it would be a win-win if I kept inviting you to discussions to return just a small portion of your own property, at the same time imposing such rediculous claims that you could never possibly agree?

A typical losers excuse, and typical of those who want everything their own way not willing to face facts. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and lays duck eggs, there's a better than even chance it's a duck. You seem to think that unfairness on your behalf is OK so long as you (or your country) get what they want, and who gives a flying fcuk that it supports the oppression and illegal occupation of the land of another people.

I assume from the nature of your post you believe I desire for continued unfair treatment of the Palestinian's. Kindly reread What I've written and how they also relate to "quotes" others have posted to before making this judgment. I may view the situation differently than you " which is the very nature of the Forum". But I never justified the mistreatment of the Palestinians or any other group for that matter! Lets get straight on that. I have met some Palestinians that wish this whole situation would go away, limited access to running water and electricity, etc. I really don't know what else I can say on this matter. I understand your stand that it's an illegal occupation and it's time for them to leave, however I just don't see that happening. When Monty brought up the transition to a country of tolerance this sounds like the best possible solution. Like South Africa which is now a shining star in Africa. Is this possible it's not for me to say.