Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's exactly what I proposed. Don't give in to any of Palestinians' demands. Don't try to negotiate as that has certainly not been successful. Cut them off entirely and only worry about Israeli citizens. The Pals can go fend for themselves and beg the Saudis, Iranians, and Qataris for money to fund the corrupt leaders of the PLO.
Now..., what I wrote is not EXACTLY what you propose. Not EXACTLY at all...
Me thinks you might want to leave the negotiations to others who might "make the bed" a little differently than you may prefer or insist.
I have not yet had the experience of visiting those countries, for a few reasons, one most certainly because of this violence I would like to avoid, just as I am not as inclined to visit Mexico as often as I used to.
If any of that should matter, I have been to Germany more than once, most recently including a visit to the Holocaust Memorial in Berlin where it seems the more modern-day problems for the Palestinians began...
What the world knows about these wars and these matters does not come from visits to these countries I don't think, but no doubt our perspectives can be influenced by such experiences. What is your connection with any of these countries?
You're going to blame the cause of Palestinians' "problems" on the millions of Jews that got slaughtered in Europe? That is seriously disgusting and actually makes me sick just reading such a foul premise. You can try and argue your twisted view of reality but I'm done. No point in interacting with someone that has such a hateful agenda.
My connections is that I wished to visit these countries and therefore did so. I stayed with a Jordanian Catholic family outside of Amman (2007), a Lebanese Catholic family that lived in Cairo(2007), and a American Jewish man who made aliyah that lived in the north of Israel(2012).
You're going to blame the cause of Palestinians' "problems" on the millions of Jews that got slaughtered in Europe? That is seriously disgusting and actually makes me sick just reading such a foul premise. You can try and argue your twisted view of reality but I'm done. No point in interacting with someone that has such a hateful agenda.
My connections is that I wished to visit these countries and therefore did so. I stayed with a Jordanian Catholic family outside of Amman (2007), a Lebanese Catholic family that lived in Cairo(2007), and a American Jewish man who made aliyah that lived in the north of Israel(2012).
Are you suggesting there is no connection between what happened to the Jews in Nazi, Germany and the birth of Israel?
And how is my want for peace regardless how we understand this connection a "hateful agenda?" What new-found ironic drama is this?
Also, you have no connection with any of these countries other than an interest as tourist?
Go or come as you wish, of course, but your dramatics are a true mystery to me...
Just a little refresher, perhaps, compliments as generic a source as Wikipedia...
Finally, the rise of Nazism and the increasing persecution of Jews in 1930s Europe led to the Fifth Aliyah, with an influx of a quarter of a million Jews. This was a major cause of the Arab revolt of 1936–39 during which the British Mandate authorities alongside the Zionist militias of Haganah and Irgun killed 5,032 Arabs and wounded 14,760, resulting in over ten percent of the adult male Palestinian Arab population killed, wounded, imprisoned or exiled. The British introduced restrictions on Jewish immigration to Palestine with the White Paper of 1939. With countries around the world turning away Jewish refugees fleeing the Holocaust, a clandestine movement known as Aliyah Bet was organized to bring Jews to Palestine. By the end of World War II, the Jewish population of Palestine had increased to 33% of the total population. On July 22, 1946, Irgun attacked the British administrative headquarters for Palestine, which was housed in the southern wing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. 91 people of various nationalities were killed and 46 were injured. The hotel was the site of the central offices of the British Mandatory authorities of Palestine, principally the Secretariat of the Government of Palestine and the Headquarters of the British Armed Forces in Palestine and Transjordan. The attack initially had the approval of the Haganah (the principal Jewish paramilitary group in Palestine). It was conceived as a response to Operation Agatha (a series of widespread raids, including one on the Jewish Agency, conducted by the British authorities) and was the deadliest directed at the British during the Mandate era (1920–1948).
Mine is a truthful and peaceful agenda, not "hateful" by any stretch of the imagination...
Those who are inclined to agree with me (or not) are many. Those opinions either way should have nothing to do with friendship or kinship. To confuse opinion with fact is not my doing, but to dismiss the opinions of world leaders or to ignore the basis for those opinions either way is more sign of an impenetrable blind ideology that of course I cannot change any better than those world leaders have been able to do. When dealing with such an agenda that knows better than to allow objective consideration, all exchange of facts, reason and logic is futile. When that agenda matters more than even peace, no peace can be had.
I think best to simply post the latest news developments and ongoing opinions from those who matter rather than wallow in the nonsense that otherwise tends to emerge here, born from bias and emotion rather than objectivity or truth. On this I think we should all be able to agree...
That's exactly what you are doing, confusing political opinion with facts.
There is no blind ideology, no agenda, no logical failures or other apologist excuses. The facts are extremely simple. If Palestine wants to become an independent state, they must negotiate the borders with Israel followed by a peace agreement via UNSC242. Obama's opinion, UNGA assembly resolutions, British opinion, ICJ's verdicts, ect have no effect.
But on the other hand, I am extremely curious. Israel did offer twice a Palestinian State with Israeli withdrawal from WB territories. How come it was not accepted by Palestinian leadership?
That's exactly what you are doing, confusing political opinion with facts.
There is no blind ideology, no agenda, no logical failures or other apologist excuses. The facts are extremely simple. If Palestine wants to become an independent state, they must negotiate the borders with Israel followed by a peace agreement via UNSC242. Obama's opinion, UNGA assembly resolutions, British opinion, ICJ's verdicts, ect have no effect.
But on the other hand, I am extremely curious. Israel did offer twice a Palestinian State with Israeli withdrawal from WB territories. How come it was not accepted by Palestinian leadership?
Sure seems to me that you offer little more than opinion yourself, and that's fine. Again, any confusion between what is opinion vs fact is not mine. What may or may not be biased opinion that leads to blind ideology has to do with whether someone is guided by their race or religion or some other connection that prevents them from being objective. Whether you consider this opinion or fact, I leave to you.
I don't pretend to be an expert on this very difficult subject, just a long-time interested observer with family who would like to see the violence end, or at least mitigated, for the sake of my kid's world and their kids...
My opinion (or fact?), Palestinian leadership has refused the deals offered by Israel to date primarily because those leaders have not been willing to accept Israel's right to negotiate those terms in the first place, let alone willing to accept those terms as acceptable. They chose war instead. Look at what the country of Palestine might be argued to look like in 1946 vs what it looks like per Israel's offers, and the problem becomes a little easier to recognize, more difficult to reconcile.
Right or wrong? I suppose this too is a matter of opinion, but if peace is to be had, the past will need to be left in the past and renewed peace negotiations will need to be started fresh. I also suspect that only new Israeli/Palestinian leadership can find a way to make progress where the old guard has been unable.
Whether time (and the ongoing violence) will have the Palestinians better accept what the Israelis offer or whether time (and the ongoing violence) will have the Israelis offer better remains to be seen. Unfortunately time (and the ongoing violence) seems to be the ongoing tactic by both sides to weaken the other into submission, but that tactic has proven costly and ineffective for both sides for too long now.
Sure seems to me that you offer little more than opinion yourself, and that's fine. Again, any confusion between what is opinion vs fact is not mine. What may or may not be biased opinion that leads to blind ideology has to do with whether someone is guided by their race or religion or some other connection that prevents them from being objective. Whether you consider this opinion or fact, I leave to you.
I don't pretend to be an expert on this very difficult subject, just a long-time interested observer with family who would like to see the violence end, or at least mitigated, for the sake of my kid's world and their kids...
My opinion (or fact?), Palestinian leadership has refused the deals offered by Israel to date primarily because those leaders have not been willing to accept Israel's right to negotiate those terms in the first place, let alone willing to accept those terms as acceptable.They chose war instead. Look at what the country of Palestine might be argued to look like in 1946 vs what it looks like per Israel's offers, and the problem becomes a little easier to recognize, more difficult to reconcile.
Right or wrong? I suppose this too is a matter of opinion, but if peace is to be had, the past will need to be left in the past and renewed peace negotiations will need to be started fresh. I also suspect that only new Israeli/Palestinian leadership can find a way to make progress where the old guard has been unable.
Whether time (and the ongoing violence) will have the Palestinians better accept what the Israelis offer or whether time (and the ongoing violence) will have the Israelis offer better remains to be seen. Unfortunately time (and the ongoing violence) seems to be the ongoing tactic by both sides to weaken the other into submission, but that tactic has proven costly and ineffective for both sides for too long now.
Do you even know what the peace offers were?
93%-97% of the West Bank would of been the country of Palestine today with East Jerusalem as its capital. What did Palestinian leadership not like about the deal?
You answered the question best, they chose war instead.
My opinion (or fact?), Palestinian leadership has refused the deals offered by Israel to date primarily because those leaders have not been willing to accept Israel's right to negotiate those terms in the first place, let alone willing to accept those terms as acceptable. They chose war instead. Look at what the country of Palestine might be argued to look like in 1946 vs what it looks like per Israel's offers, and the problem becomes a little easier to recognize, more difficult to reconcile.
So what Israel can do if the Palestinians constantly chose war? I think in this case maybe the only solution for peace is nakba 2.0.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Right or wrong? I suppose this too is a matter of opinion, but if peace is to be had, the past will need to be left in the past and renewed peace negotiations will need to be started fresh. I also suspect that only new Israeli/Palestinian leadership can find a way to make progress where the old guard has been unable.
No. In this case, when the Palestinians always refuse to accept any offer, the world should intervene. USA, Russia, Europe, UN Security Council should prepare a detailed and final agreement that will be presented to the sides. The Israelis and Palestinians will perform a referendum. Any side that will agree will receive nice incentives in form of investments etc. A side that will refuse will get a total boycott.
93%-97% of the West Bank would of been the country of Palestine today with East Jerusalem as its capital. What did Palestinian leadership not like about the deal?
You answered the question best, they chose war instead.
The West Bank is land locked, is it not? No problem there I suppose...
I cannot emphasize enough, but I will do it again..., wallowing in the past when it comes to resolving the Israeli/Palestinian problem is nothing but a cluster muck of finger pointing that gets nowhere. Both sides need to let go of a great deal of all that baggage or progress forward will prove no more successful.
Meanwhile, why make matters worse?
Israel seizes 234 hectares of land in West Bank
Government confiscated more than 200 hectares of Palestinian land in the occupied territory near Jericho, group says.
Why not, if the pals will never agree to any offer?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
