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’m a center-left liberal, and I don’t think you could fairly characterize me as anti-Israel. They have an absolute right to exist.
But they are not doing themselves any favors by continuing to gaslight the Palestinians in the West Bank by continuing “settlements” and occupying the remainder. The offer should be 100 percent of unannexed land and no fragmentation of contiguous territory (e.g. Golan is off the table, Israel did annex it). Abandon the settlements that force fragmentation, and annex what Israel won’t give up. That offer should be written and public, with ALL provisions listed. If Israeli settlers insist on staying on unannexed land, cool, Palestine must offer them citizenship or permanent residency similar to what Israel did with the Golan.
If a two-state solution is the answer, it must be two STATES and not one fully independent (Israel) with a sort-of, restricted state on the other.
Unlike the 2000 offer, if it’s public-somewhat more difficult not to be serious about it, for either side.
I think this is reasonable. I think Israel should offer the settlers an equal property and home in Israel in exchange, should they choose to leave The West Bank. And if they decide to stay living in the new Palestinian state, then it is at their own risk.
Then if the Palestinians continue to attack Israel, it will be an act of war between two separate countries, and Israel can respond as any other country on the planet would respond when attacked by another country.
This would separate out once and for all the people who want peace, vs the people who just want to see the end of a Jewish homeland.
Harmless Canada's independence was phased; first, "responsible government" in the 1850's, meaning basically home rule, then "Dominion" status on July 1, 1867, then the vice-regal head of state being a Canadian, in the 1920's or 1930's, then control of foreign policy starting in 1931, then it's own embassies, I think in 1944 and at some point during WW II, command over its fighting troops. Why should an entity whose sworn aim is the destruction of its neighbor be given the keys to the legitimate use of military force and violence right away?
You express what I’m trying to say, but so much better!
Harmless Canada's independence was phased; first, "responsible government" in the 1850's, meaning basically home rule, then "Dominion" status on July 1, 1867, then the vice-regal head of state being a Canadian, in the 1920's or 1930's, then control of foreign policy starting in 1931, then it's own embassies, I think in 1944 and at some point during WW II, command over its fighting troops. Why should an entity whose sworn aim is the destruction of its neighbor be given the keys to the legitimate use of military force and violence right away?
That’s not actually a bad idea, as long it’s publicly stated in writing what the timeline is and the conditions are CLEAR and not subject to interpretation by, say, a newly elected hard-right Israeli government-although the two situations are not analogous. Canada was a fundamental part of Britain’s empire. The West Bank is clearly occupied territory unless it was formally brought into Israel.
The key is to put the provisions in an offer out publicly. “Here’s the offer”. Quit with the back room deals. Both sides authorities have powerful incentives not to take anything that isn’t absolutely perfect for them, but if the average Palestinian knew what was on offer-that’d be a powerful incentive to take an actual fair deal.
I think this is reasonable. I think Israel should offer the settlers an equal property and home in Israel in exchange, should they choose to leave The West Bank. And if they decide to stay living in the new Palestinian state, then it is at their own risk.
Then if the Palestinians continue to attack Israel, it will be an act of war between two separate countries, and Israel can respond as any other country on the planet would respond when attacked by another country.
This would separate out once and for all the people who want peace, vs the people who just want to see the end of a Jewish homeland.
The order is wrong. You’re saying that Israel should give the Palestinians everything they want, but rescind it if they continue to attack Israel after that.
How about the Palestinians affirm, in writing, that they officially recognize Israel’s right to exist and will not attack it if Israel cedes them land they want? Then and only then will Israel grant them land. The answer is: HAMAS won’t allow it.
You cannot make peace with people who elect terrorists with the sworn goal to destroy you.
I think this is reasonable. I think Israel should offer the settlers an equal property and home in Israel in exchange, should they choose to leave The West Bank. And if they decide to stay living in the new Palestinian state, then it is at their own risk.
Then if the Palestinians continue to attack Israel, it will be an act of war between two separate countries, and Israel can respond as any other country on the planet would respond when attacked by another country.
This would separate out once and for all the people who want peace, vs the people who just want to see the end of a Jewish homeland.
If a newly formed Palestine attacked Israel, I would enthusiastically support Israel reoccupation. They (Palestine) would have had their chance...and not in a conceptual way.
The order is wrong. You’re saying that Israel should give the Palestinians everything they want, but rescind it if they continue to attack Israel after that.
How about the Palestinians affirm, in writing, that they officially recognize Israel’s right to exist and will not attack it if Israel cedes them land they want? Then and only then will Israel grant them land. The answer is: HAMAS won’t allow it.
You cannot make peace with people who elect terrorists with the sworn goal to destroy you.
If a newly formed Palestine attacked Israel, I would enthusiastically support Israel. They (Palestine) would have had their chance...and not in a conceptual way.
But they’ve already had their chance. Israel offered land back, but part of the agreement had to be that the Arabs (there’s really no such thing as Palestinians) acknowledged Israel’s right to exist. THEY REFUSED.
Now, you sound like a reasonable guy. Do you really think that, given Hamas’ goal to destroy Israel, and the fact that the Arabs in the disputed territory continue to elect them, that Israel should go ahead and cede them land without FIRST getting the Arabs to agree to Israel’s right to exist? Then and only then will they get the land back.
Are you saying it would be simultaneous? That Israel agrees to cede land and the Hamas-led Palestinians agree that Israel has a right to exist and will stop launching rockets?
Then, sure. But it can’t be 100% of the land, leaving Israel so narrow in spots that the antisemites could attack easily. Israel could give back the land, but retaining enough of it that they could still defend itself.
The order is wrong. You’re saying that Israel should give the Palestinians everything they want, but rescind it if they continue to attack Israel after that.
How about the Palestinians affirm, in writing, that they officially recognize Israel’s right to exist and will not attack it if Israel cedes them land they want. Then and only then will Israel grant them land. The answer is: HAMAS won’t allow it.
You cannot make peace with people who elect terrorists with the sworn goal to destroy you.
Not rescind. I think it would be dumb of Israel to ever take the land back. But if the Palestine (now an actual country) attacks them, it will be an official act of war.
Even the UN would have to consider it an act of war under their own definition: "The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State." At that point, they will not be in a position to complain when Israel pounds the country that attacked them.
If a newly formed Palestine attacked Israel, I would enthusiastically support Israel reoccupation. They (Palestine) would have had their chance...and not in a conceptual way.
I don't think Israel should ever reoccupy. I think Israel's response should be one that makes the Palestinians think twice about ever attacking them again.
Everything we have seen up to this point has been a restrained response, due to the optics. Once Palestine attacks them as a country, the optics change completely.
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.
