Israel rightfully own the West Bank .

[senojekips]

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.

South Africa is no "Shining Star" it is a basket case, but that is their business, obviously you have little idea of what is going on in this world.

The simple fact is that you do not support a fair and legally viable solution, so, Yes! that does make you a supporter of this continued unfair and illegal treatment of the Palestinian people. Your poor attempt at fence sitting is deplorable. The fact is that the land is stolen and there cannot be a legally recognised or moral solution until it is returned to it's rightful owners. Where this leaves the illegal occupants I couldn't care less, as they deliberately made this mess, so they can find their own answer.

I notice how you have carefully avoided answering such propositions as I put to you, putting you and your family in the place of the Palestinians, and I strongly suspect that this is because you feel that you would never agree to it, but it's quite OK so long as it's only the Palestinians who have to sacrifice all that is theirs.

(Hypocrisy) the act of paying lip service to one ideal whilst actually supporting the reverse.

 

[MontyB]

The simple fact is that you do not support a fair and legally viable answer, therefore that makes you part of the problem, not part of the answer. The land is stolen and there cannot be a solution until it is returned to it's rightful owners. Where this leaves the illegal occupants I neither care nor can be bothered worrying about a solution as they deliberately made this mess, so they can find their own answer.

I notice how you have carefully avoided answering such propositions as I put to you putting you and your family in the place of the Palestinians, and I strongly suspect that this is because you feel that you would never put up with it, but it's OK so long as it's only the Palestinians who have to sacrifice all that is theirs.

I think that is a rather extreme attitude and even though it is not an attitude I entirely disagree with I think there is a point where this conflict just has to end for the benefit of everyone.

It is unrealistic to think that you are going to pack up 5 million Israelis and ship them back to where ever they came from therefore the only answer is a compromise and it will be one where there are no winners, the Palestinians will have lost a lot in any situation and the Israelis will lose it all in a one state solution but either solution is a step forward for the Palestinians in their current position and I believe they are prepared to take that step however I do not think the Israelis fully understand the end games ramifications yet and under Netanpsyhco it will not happen.

 

[senojekips]

I think that is a rather extreme attitude and even though it is not an attitude I entirely disagree with I think there is a point where this conflict just has to end for the benefit of everyone.

So you would have elected to negotiate with Hitler and give him what he wanted.

It is unrealistic to think that you are going to pack up 5 million Israelis and ship them back to where ever they came from

So,... it's quite reasonable that these parasites can uproot themselves from all over the world and travel to and take up residence in Palestine, but it's not reasonable for them to be made to return from whence they came, or anywhere else that will have them?

C'mon Monty you know that we've been through all this before, your reasoning hasn't got a moral or legal leg to stand on. For a start, how are you going to arrange to allow the Palestinians to return to their land and homes whilst they are occupied by illegal occupiers? Bear in mind that in many (virtually all) cases these are the same people who have been treating their Palestinians like animals for nearly 70 years harassing, beating, stoning and murdering them and their families.

Israeli Mistreatment of civilians

Settler abusing Palestinian woman in her own home

It is my honest opinion that the israeli administration encourages this behaviour (note the soldier who just stands idly by and does nothing to intervene on behalf of the Palestinian woman) just to make any form of integration impossible. Plus of course you saw the video taped admission by Netandhairdo that he deliberately went to "peace talks" to sabotage any chance of anyone working towards any form of a possible fair solution.

I seem to remember you stating on this Forum that it was your considered opinion that the Israelis do not want peace they want land, and when they have the West Bank under control they will start niggling away at their other neighbours, Lebanon, Jordan Syria etc.

So how about this one then?
Netanyahu proved Israel doesn't want peace
Netanyahu shows to the world that Israel wants neither an agreement nor a Palestinian state, and for that matter not peace, either.

 

[MontyB]

The trouble is that in this case we do not disagree on the problem and I agree entirely with what you are saying but we clearly disagree on the solution.

Also what you remember me saying was that when talking to Jordanians during last years trip I found that many of them said it was their fear that once Israel had made the two state solution impossible through settlement expansion that they would find reasons to expand into their neighbours territory as they were trying to rebuild some ancient mythical kingdom.

As for the Hitler comment no I wouldn't have continued to negotiate with Hitler but at the same time I don't think uprooting every German throughout Europe and sending them off on a death march was a good idea either.

In my opinion you are fighting the wrong war here, you are still fighting 1947-48 where the Palestinians and the rest of the world are trying to end 1967.

 

[senojekips]

The trouble is that in this case we do not disagree on the problem and I agree entirely with what you are saying but we clearly disagree on the solution.

Because you don't have a solution, your "solution" is no more than rubbing the Palestinian's noses in their existing problems thereby worsening the situation. You have stated yourself that the Palestinians cannot even hope for a fair and equitable solution as they go to the bargaining table with an empty hand. (not to mention your previously mentioned statement that the Israelis have absolutely no intention of any negotiated settlement unless it is all their way. They won't settle for anything other than a complete surrender by the Palestinians, and we have seem countless examples of this over the years.

As for the Hitler comment no I wouldn't have continued to negotiate with Hitler but at the same time I don't think uprooting every German throughout Europe and sending them off on a death march was a good idea either.

No one mentioned uprooting every German in Europe, but I'm sure they would remove all of those who occupied other countries as part of the Lebensraum plan. Also no mention was made of a "Death March", I did say that those who went would have to do it at their own expense though. None of which answers my question about, "where would the Israelis live with when the Palestinians returned to their homes and land? This is a problem entirely of their own making.

In my opinion you are fighting the wrong war here, you are still fighting 1947-48 where the Palestinians and the rest of the world are trying to end 1967.

You are dead right,... it's not the wrong war I'm fighting, I'm starting the book at the beginning, not in the middle. To have any chance of a fair, equitable and legal solution we must solve the problems as they occurred. Why on earth should the International community, much less the Palestinians ignore the root of the problem and expect the rightful owners to accept that it is somehow miraculously solved? To me it seems that your "solutions" are all designed to inflame the current situation, not solve them.

 

[MontyB]

Because you don't have a solution, your "solution" is no more than rubbing the Palestinian's noses in their existing problems thereby worsening the situation. You have stated yourself that the Palestinians cannot even hope for a fair and equitable solution as they go to the bargaining table with an empty hand. (not to mention your previously mentioned statement that the Israelis have absolutely no intention of any negotiated settlement unless it is all their way. They won't settle for anything other than a complete surrender by the Palestinians, and we have seem countless examples of this over the years.

No one mentioned uprooting every German in Europe, but I'm sure they would remove all of those who occupied other countries as part of the Lebensraum plan. Also no mention was made of a "Death March", I did say that those who went would have to do it at their own expense though. None of which answers my question about, "where would the Israelis live with when the Palestinians returned to their homes and land? This is a problem entirely of their own making.

You are dead right,... it's not the wrong war I'm fighting, I'm starting the book at the beginning, not in the middle. To have any chance of a fair, equitable and legal solution we must solve the problems as they occurred. Why on earth should the International community, much less the Palestinians ignore the root of the problem and expect the rightful owners to accept that it is somehow miraculously solved? To me it seems that your "solutions" are all designed to inflame the current situation, not solve them.

I will be honest and say that I don't think you understand the situation on the ground there.
There are multiple problems that have arisen at various time frames:
1) Those forced out in 1947-48 who are in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan etc.
2) The West Bank situation that arose in 1967.

These are two very different issues and require addressing differently.

But rather than address all this I will cut to the chase and say there are only two possible outcomes in this...
1) A two state solution:
This will be based on ending the 1967 war and involve the Palestinians getting 90% of the West Bank plus some Israeli land to compensate for the 10% lost however I am not convinced this will ever happen because Israels settlers carry too much weight within the Israeli government thus paralysing any agreement.

This outcome should not be considered a win for the Palestinians because it will do nothing for the 1947-48 refugees but it will improve the overall standing of the Palestinians.

2) A Single State Solution:
This is the default outcome and the one that is going to end up destroying Israel, once settlements make a viable Palestinian state impossible then all that is left is the single state solution.
I have no doubt that the way this will go down is that Israel will annex the fertile chunks of the West Bank and leave the Palestinians with three bantustan's in the north and south of the West Bank plus Gaza.
The problem for Israel is that this will not be accepted anywhere in the world and Israel will then head off down the South African apartheid road which will be fought in much the same way the world eventually fought South Africa.

The end result will be 5 million Palestinian Israelis and about 20 years later Israel will more than likely change its name to something like Palestine due to the demographic change.

I see this scenario as the most likely outcome given the situation on the ground today.

 

[senojekips]

These are two very different issues and require addressing differently.

The fact is that if we settle the first problem (1947-48) we solve the second problem by default. The Zionist occupation of Palestine is illegal and all lands and properties must be returned to their legitimate owners. Anything less than this is only a solution for the Israelis and will only deepen the hatred and sense of injustice.

But rather than address all this I will cut to the chase and say there are only two possible outcomes in this...
1) A two state solution:
This will be based on ending the 1967 war and involve the Palestinians getting 90% of the West Bank plus some Israeli land to compensate for the 10% lost however I am not convinced this will ever happen because Israels settlers carry too much weight within the Israeli government thus paralysing any agreement.

This outcome should not be considered a win for the Palestinians because it will do nothing for the 1947-48 refugees but it will improve the overall standing of the Palestinians.

2) A Single State Solution:
This is the default outcome and the one that is going to end up destroying Israel, once settlements make a viable Palestinian state impossible then all that is left is the single state solution.
I have no doubt that the way this will go down is that Israel will annex the fertile chunks of the West Bank and leave the Palestinians with three bantustan's in the north and south of the West Bank plus Gaza.
The problem for Israel is that this will not be accepted anywhere in the world and Israel will then head off down the South African apartheid road which will be fought in much the same way the world eventually fought South Africa.

The end result will be 5 million Palestinian Israelis and about 20 years later Israel will more than likely change its name to something like Palestine due to the demographic change.

I see this scenario as the most likely outcome given the situation on the ground today.

It sounds great, in fact it sounds too great, but can you imagine the Israelis ever allowing this to happen. I'd say there is more chance of a Palestinian holocaust. Remember, we are talking of a group who allow, or encourage the killing of school aged children for throwing stones at armoured vehicles.

 

[MontyB]

It sounds great, in fact it sounds too great, but can you imagine the Israelis ever allowing this to happen. I'd say there is more chance of a Palestinian holocaust. Remember, we are talking of a group who allow, or encourage the killing of school aged children for throwing stones at armoured vehicles.

I certainly don't see it coming easily and yes it will get worse for the Palestinians before it gets better but in the end it is the only option that will be available, there will be no Palestinian "holocaust" because the world would never let it happen it would spell the end of Israel in the space of days if they tried and lets face it if they believed they could have done it they would have by now.

Lets not forget that South Africa of the 60s and 70s is not all that different to what the Palestinians face now you can see similarities in the Soweto uprising.

Israel's intransigence in solving the West Bank issue will eventually end up destroying it, the only real issue is how much resolve does the Palestinian leadership have.

 

[MontyB]

The fact is that if we settle the first problem (1947-48) we solve the second problem by default. The Zionist occupation of Palestine is illegal and all lands and properties must be returned to their legitimate owners. Anything less than this is only a solution for the Israelis and will only deepen the hatred and sense of injustice.

As you know I am a supporter of the BDS movement so I figure I should point out their aim:

The BDS demands not only an end to the 1967 occupation, but equality for Palestinian citizens of Israel and that Israel “respect, protect and promote” Palestinian refugees’ right of return.

In my opinion this aim is all that can realistically be achieved without replacing one humanitarian nightmare with another, there is no doubt that this would spell the end of Israel as a "Jewish" state but it does not spell the end of Israel as the national home of the Jewish people and it does achieve the goals of the British Mandate for Palestine in that it creates a country that is home to both Jewish and Palestinian people.

 

[senojekips]

In my opinion this aim is all that can realistically be achieved without replacing one humanitarian nightmare with another, there is no doubt that this would spell the end of Israel as a "Jewish" state but it does not spell the end of Israel as the national home of the Jewish people and it does achieve the goals of the British Mandate for Palestine in that it creates a country that is home to both Jewish and Palestinian people.

Firtsly, why should the Jewish people be entitled to a "homeland"? Why should an Asian or African Jew with no connection be entitled to settle in a foreign land to which they have no historical, moral or legal entitlement? Methodists don't have a homeland, nor Baptists, nor Catholics, much less why should the world turn a blind eye to the fact that these people have stolen the land of another people, driving them into adjoining countries and killing many of those who resisted?

The Mandate failed to establish a Jewish state in Palestine because it stated quite clearly that it could not happen without the consent of the legitimate occupants. There were also many other International Laws and Conventions that made it an impossibility without Palestinian agreement.

 

[MontyB]

Firtsly, why should the Jewish people be entitled to a "homeland"? Why should an Asian or African Jew with no connection be entitled to settle in a foreign land to which they have no historical, moral or legal entitlement? Methodists don't have a homeland, nor Baptists, nor Catholics, much less why should the world turn a blind eye to the fact that these people have stolen the land of another people, driving them into adjoining countries and killing many of those who resisted?

I agree, I am not going to argue this point but I will say that just as Europeans are not going to leave New Zealand, America, Australia or any of the colonial countries you are not going to get Jews out of Israel and as such focusing on that one invariable is stopping any progress on the problem.

I was always taught that in solving a problem you should always focus on things you can change.

In the end there are only two options to this issue, one state or two, everything else is just semantics.

 

[senojekips]

I agree, I am not going to argue this point but I will say that just as Europeans are not going to leave New Zealand, America, Australia or any of the colonial countries you are not going to get Jews out of Israel and as such focusing on that one invariable is stopping any progress on the problem.

The Zionists deliberately flouted a number of International laws in occupying Palestine. These laws were not in existence at the time of the settlement of America, Australia and New Zealand, and in the case of Australia and N.Z. it was never considered a military occupation. Read about "The Age of Discovery"

There is nothing here that cannot be changed a fact that has all been discussed before on a number of occasions. The Zionists have deliberately entangled themselves hoping that it would cause people such as yourself to arrive at this conclusion. Unfortunately there is no truth in this line of thinking. They went to Palestine at their own cost and they can go elsewhere similarly. (You deliberately dig yourself into the sh!t, you can certainly dig yourself out.)

It comes back to the case of the thief who went to great effort, time and expense to steal someone else's property. When caught the courts don't say, "Oh, look how hard he worked to commit this crime, lets punish the victim and allow him to keep the spoils of his crime"

 

[MontyB]

The Zionists deliberately flouted a number of International laws in occupying Palestine. These laws were not in existence at the time of the settlement of America, Australia and New Zealand, and in the case of Australia and N.Z. it was never considered a military occupation. Read about "The Age of Discovery"

There is nothing here that cannot be changed a fact that has all been discussed before on a number of occasions. The Zionists have deliberately entangled themselves hoping that it would cause people such as yourself to arrive at this conclusion. Unfortunately there is no truth in this line of thinking. They went to Palestine at their own cost and they can go elsewhere similarly. (You deliberately dig yourself into the sh!t, you can certainly dig yourself out.)

It comes back to the case of the thief who went to great effort, time and expense to steal someone else's property. When caught the courts don't say, "Oh, look how hard he worked to commit this crime, lets punish the victim and allow him to keep the spoils of his crime"

I understand all that and agree with much of it but my point remains that you are not going to roll back the last 70 years therefore the only answer is a "one state or two" compromise anything else is just wishful thinking.

 

[dadsgirl]

I understand all that and agree with much of it but my point remains that you are not going to roll back the last 70 years therefore the only answer is a "one state or two" compromise anything else is just wishful thinking.

MontyB, nicely put!

Dadsgirl

 

[senojekips]

I understand all that and agree with much of it but my point remains that you are not going to roll back the last 70 years therefore the only answer is a "one state or two" compromise anything else is just wishful thinking.

Only because of American inertia. If the Yanks did the right thing, this would all have been over and done with 60 years ago. All we have to do is show them that they are in fact half the cause of this, and that does not make it right. That which is done, can just as easily be undone, all it takes is some will power and a desire for justice. As has been pointed out innumerable times Nazi Germany was not rewarded for it's crimes, why should the Israelis?

What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

 

[MontyB]

Only because of American inertia. If the Yanks did the right thing, this would all have been over and done with 60 years ago. All we have to do is show them that they are in fact half the cause of this, and that does not make it right. That which is done, can just as easily be undone, all it takes is some will power and a desire for justice. As has been pointed out innumerable times Nazi Germany was not rewarded for it's crimes, why should the Israelis?

What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

You can not just dump this mess on America, would we have been in the same position had Hitler not been a raving nutjob, what about the British selling the same bit of land to two people and to cap it off selling land it didn't own, what about the whole lunacy of religion for the last 3000 years and the supremacist nature that is Zionism.

The problems in the region have been there for 3000 years and while the USA may be the current ones in charge of fixing it they will not be the first or the last to try they are just one in 3 millennia of empires that become bogged down the place fixing a mess of someone elses making.

 

[senojekips]

I don't remember the Brits selling off anything. As far as I know they were made the Administrators of Palestine by the League of nations to administer the Mandate for Palestine until they could take over the running of their own government. This included investigating the possibility as to whether the Palestinians might agree to allow the setting up of a Jewish state in Palestine.

The Palestinians never agreed to this and as a result Resolution 181 was never ratified. The Zionists could see that there was no legal way they could achieve their goal so they resorted to terrorism against the legitimate administration driving them out and then illegally occupying the land. You know what happened as well as I do.

I shouldn't have to be going over all this again as it has been covered at least 4 or 5 times.

 

[MontyB]

I don't remember the Brits selling off anything. As far as I know they were made the Administrators of Palestine by the League of nations to administer the Mandate for Palestine until they could take over the running of their own government. This included investigating the possibility as to whether the Palestinians might agree to allow the setting up of a Jewish state in Palestine.

The Palestinians never agreed to this and as a result Resolution 181 was never ratified. The Zionists could see that there was no legal way they could achieve their goal so they resorted to terrorism against the legitimate administration driving them out and then illegally occupying the land. You know what happened as well as I do.

I shouldn't have to be going over all this again as it has been covered at least 4 or 5 times.

No we shouldn't but if we are going to lay the blame for this mess on anyone it should be Britain, had it followed its mandate post war Israel would not exist, had it not double dealt telling Palestinians rise up and fight for us and you will get your country and as soon as they were out the door promising Zionists a homeland none of this mess would have existed.

I stick by the argument that it is wrong to lay this mess at the doorstep of the USA, there is no doubt that since 1947 American politicians have been purchased by AIPAC but until 1947 US policy was fairly set against the formation of Israel.

Once again anyone interested in this conflict should seriously consider reading Genesis: Truman, American Jews, and the Origins of the Arab/Israeli Conflict by John B Judis.