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.
I believe “Right of return” was the true roadblock for the Palestinians. From what I remember, in that 5% was the trading of lands. A small piece of Palestinian land that was majority Jewish, to be traded for a much larger piece of Israeli land which was predominantly Palestinian.
As I said, the Palestinians have to give up on “right of return” if there is ever to be peace. “Right of return” will never happen because that is essentially the end of the Jewish state.
All true, which is why there will be no solution. Israel cannot give in due to demographics. No Palestinian negotiator could "sell out" the Palestinians on the right of return issue - and survive, both politically and perhaps literally! For a variety of reasons, it is profoundly unrealistic to expect that the Palestinians will be absorbed by other Middle East states. (Jordan has done more than it's share with the overall dynamic still somewhat unstable.)
And the Palestinians aren't jerks to Isrselis? Their elected leadership, Hamas, is sworn to their destruction. Very nice.
Well maybe if the Israelis didn't build illegal settlements the Palestinians wouldn't have elected Hamas. Yes, they are both being jerks but Israel is rich and powerful and has the US backing them up so they look like the big bully in this situation. Calling them out still has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with them looking and acting like bullies and violating international law.
All of these comments about her motivation for placing the post-it on a map next to Israel mean little.
When in doubt, one should probably go to the source.
Apparently she received an endorsement based on her support of a two-state solution. Then she changed her position.
As a candidate she appeared to support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and maintaining U.S. aid to Israel. Haaretz details a webpage set up for Tlaib on J Street’s fundraising site that states she, “believes that the U.S. should be directly involved with negotiations to reach a two-state solution. Additionally, she supports all current aid to Israel and the Palestinian Authority.” That put her in line with J Street’s own positions and qualified her for its support, which depends on candidates affirming its “core principles.” But almost immediately after she was elected Tlaib began to affirm her opposition to those principles starting with a statement to In These Times where, in response to an interviewer asking “what about a two-state solution vs. one-state” she said:
"One state. It has to be one state. Separate but equal does not work. I’m only 42 years old but my teachers were of that generation that marched with Martin Luther King. This whole idea of a two-state solution, it doesn’t work."
Well, I think she is simply saying Palestinians live there along with Israel.
How in the world could someone “literally” wipe a country off a map?
.
Nobody could actually wipe a country off a map.....it's figurative.
But there is no way to abolish Israel, and call all of it Palestine, with the intent that Palestianians and (former) Israelis live peacefully side-by-side. The new country would just become yet another Muslim-majority Middle East country. Completely untenable for Jews, in (former) Israel as well as the Diaspora. We need a Jewish State where Jews enjoy self-determination.
Well maybe if the Israelis didn't build illegal settlements the Palestinians wouldn't have elected Hamas. Yes, they are both being jerks but Israel is rich and powerful and has the US backing them up so they look like the big bully in this situation. Calling them out still has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with them looking and acting like bullies and violating international law.
You're too hostile to Israel to have a reasonable discussion with. Wouldn't accomplish anything.
All of these comments about her motivation for placing the post-it on a map next to Israel mean little.
When in doubt, one should probably go to the source.
Apparently she received an endorsement based on her support of a two-state solution. Then she changed her position.
As a candidate she appeared to support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and maintaining U.S. aid to Israel. Haaretz details a webpage set up for Tlaib on J Street’s fundraising site that states she, “believes that the U.S. should be directly involved with negotiations to reach a two-state solution. Additionally, she supports all current aid to Israel and the Palestinian Authority.” That put her in line with J Street’s own positions and qualified her for its support, which depends on candidates affirming its “core principles.” But almost immediately after she was elected Tlaib began to affirm her opposition to those principles starting with a statement to In These Times where, in response to an interviewer asking “what about a two-state solution vs. one-state” she said:
"One state. It has to be one state. Separate but equal does not work. I’m only 42 years old but my teachers were of that generation that marched with Martin Luther King. This whole idea of a two-state solution, it doesn’t work."
So, you have a point, Rachel, if a one-state solution means the end of Israel.
Thank you.
And yes, I'm aware of her "switcheroo" (although I appreciate your digging up the link). She played J-Street like a fiddle, lying to get their support, and only after that did she reveal her true beliefs.
There's also something in Islam that says it's OK to lie in the effort to spread Islam throughout the world, and that's clearly what she did with her false statement of support for a 2-state solution.
And yes...a one-state solution is the Kiss of Death to Israel. And she knows it.
All of these comments about her motivation for placing the post-it on a map next to Israel mean little.
When in doubt, one should probably go to the source.
Apparently she received an endorsement based on her support of a two-state solution. Then she changed her position.
As a candidate she appeared to support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and maintaining U.S. aid to Israel. Haaretz details a webpage set up for Tlaib on J Street’s fundraising site that states she, “believes that the U.S. should be directly involved with negotiations to reach a two-state solution. Additionally, she supports all current aid to Israel and the Palestinian Authority.” That put her in line with J Street’s own positions and qualified her for its support, which depends on candidates affirming its “core principles.” But almost immediately after she was elected Tlaib began to affirm her opposition to those principles starting with a statement to In These Times where, in response to an interviewer asking “what about a two-state solution vs. one-state” she said:
"One state. It has to be one state. Separate but equal does not work. I’m only 42 years old but my teachers were of that generation that marched with Martin Luther King. This whole idea of a two-state solution, it doesn’t work."
So, you have a point, Rachel, if a one-state solution means the end of Israel.
She is falsely using the term “separate but equal” to pull on heartstrings. It brings back the painful memories of America’s “separate but equal” Jim Crow laws.
But a two state solution would, by it’s very definition, be something completely different. It would be two different countries. Not “separate but equal” within the same country.
By her definition, the US and Mexico would be considered “separate but equal”.
And yes, I'm aware of her "switcheroo" (although I appreciate your digging up the link). She played J-Street like a fiddle, lying to get their support, and only after that did she reveal her true beliefs.
There's also something in Islam that says it's OK to lie in the effort to spread Islam throughout the world, and that's clearly what she did with her false statement of support for a 2-state solution.
And yes...a one-state solution is the Kiss of Death to Israel. And she knows it.
Can you elaborate on how a one-state solution would be the kiss of death to Israel?
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.
