• You may find search is unavailable for a little while. Trying to fix a problem.

[Continuation] General Israel/Palestine discussion thread - Part 4

While stating that peace is going to bloom, only if Westabanky, Gazza, plus the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif/alAqsa are Palestineian, and Jews GTFO.

Somehow everyone here proposing this course of action by Israel, forgets to mention that OTHER part of Palestinian demands -- namely, the return of the refugees. 5 or 6 million of 'em (at latest spurious count).
 
webfusion said:
While stating that peace is going to bloom, only if Westabanky, Gazza, plus the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif/alAqsa are Palestineian, and Jews GTFO.

Somehow everyone here proposing this course of action by Israel, forgets to mention that OTHER part of Palestinian demands -- namely, the return of the refugees. 5 or 6 million of 'em (at latest spurious count).
Click to expand...

Do you understand the concept of a negotiation?
 
webfusion said:
While stating that peace is going to bloom, only if Westabanky, Gazza, plus the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif/alAqsa are Palestineian, and Jews GTFO.

Somehow everyone here proposing this course of action by Israel, forgets to mention that OTHER part of Palestinian demands -- namely, the return of the refugees. 5 or 6 million of 'em (at latest spurious count).
Click to expand...

Right of Return will be to the State of Palestine. Israel cannot and will not be expected to take in hundreds of thousands of Arab refugees.

Old City will not be ruled just by Palestine. It will be under international regime or shared control.

East Jerusalem will be split by Arab and Jewish areas.

Palestine will get say 90% of the West Bank, with land exchanges for the remaining 10%.

Israel will keep some of the larger settlements that are near the border.
 
Last edited:
Cosmic Yak said:
Exactly as I said: they do not recognise the state of Israel.
Click to expand...

Do you understand the concept of negotiation. Israel does not accept the right to exist of a Palestinian state. Hamas says they do not recognise the right to exist of a Jewish state, but would be prepared to negotiate on the basis of the 1967 borders which means de facto accepting the existence of the state of Israel.

No Hamas aren't going to announce they recognise the legitimacy of Israel before the negotiations start. But they are also clearly saying that they would accept the state of Israel as part of a negotiated settlement. Netanyahu rejected this because he does not want a negotiation that is predicated on an outcome of an independent Palestinian state under any circumstances. Trump rejected it because Trump. Any document such as this is the product of internal negotiations between factions. The statement that they were prepared to accept a solution based on 1967 borders was clearly a win for the pragmatic political wing, its rejection was then clearly damaging to the pragmatists and probably swung power to the militant military wing. I suspect if some positive moves had been made in 2017 then we wouldn't be where we are now. Now that didn't mean that Israel immediately sits down with Hamas, it probably means the US talks to Qatar.
 
Planigale said:
Do you understand the concept of negotiation.
Click to expand...

Yes. Any other patronising questions?

Planigale said:
Israel does not accept the right to exist of a Palestinian state.
Click to expand...
Incorrect.
The current Israeli government does not accept a two-state solution. However, Israel is a democracy, and other parties- Meretz, Labour, Raam and the United Arab Party- endorse a two state solution.

Planigale said:
Hamas says they do not recognise the right to exist of a Jewish state, but would be prepared to negotiate on the basis of the 1967 borders which means de facto accepting the existence of the state of Israel.
Click to expand...

No: incorrect again. You are being far too trusting of Hamas, and not reading what they're saying carefully enough.
What Hamas is saying is that the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders is a first step. Did you notice the preamble to that? "Without compromising the rights of Palestinians". Remember that? This is what that means:
Palestine, which extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras al-Naqurah in the north to Umm al-Rashrash in the south, is an integral territorial unit. It is the land and the home of the Palestinian people. The expulsion and banishment of the Palestinian people from their land and the establishment of the Zionist entity therein do not annul the right of the Palestinian people to their entire land and do not entrench any rights therein for the usurping Zionist entity.
Click to expand...

Planigale said:
No Hamas aren't going to announce they recognise the legitimacy of Israel before the negotiations start. But they are also clearly saying that they would accept the state of Israel as part of a negotiated settlement.
Click to expand...

No, they are not. Once again, I invite you to quote any part of the 2017 Hamas document that states that. What this is, is your wishful interpretation of what you hope Hamas is saying: it is far from reality.

Planigale said:
Netanyahu rejected this because he does not want a negotiation that is predicated on an outcome of an independent Palestinian state under any circumstances.
Click to expand...
When did this happen?
I mean, I know Bibi is an ********, who rejects the idea of a Palestinian state. What I'm not clear on is when these negotiations- or negotiation proposals- you mention here, took place.

Planigale said:
Trump rejected it because Trump.
Click to expand...

Again, you'll get no argument from me about the awfulness of Trump, but it is not true to say he rejected a two-state solution.

Planigale said:
Any document such as this is the product of internal negotiations between factions. The statement that they were prepared to accept a solution based on 1967 borders was clearly a win for the pragmatic political wing, its rejection was then clearly damaging to the pragmatists and probably swung power to the militant military wing.
Click to expand...

It's merely propaganda. They've toned down the hate, the antisemitism and the bonkers conspiracy theories, in order to appease their gullible supporters around the world. Clearly, that ploy has been successful. Their overall goals have not changed at all- drive out the Jews and seize the entirety of Israel, but the new mask of moderation has convinced people- like yourself- that they really want peace. They don't. The 2017 document says so:
There shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity.

Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea.

Resisting the occupation with all means and methods is a legitimate right guaranteed by divine laws and by international norms and laws. At the heart of these lies armed resistance.
Click to expand...

Planigale said:
I suspect if some positive moves had been made in 2017 then we wouldn't be where we are now. Now that didn't mean that Israel immediately sits down with Hamas, it probably means the US talks to Qatar.
Click to expand...

The 2017 statement was largely ignored by the US and Israel because it contained little that was new or productive, and was issued by a terrorist organisation, that reaffirmed its commitment to violence, denied Israel the right to exist, repudiated previous peace talks, and claimed the entirety of Jerusalem as its capital.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full
 
Planigale said:
Do you understand the concept of negotiation. Israel does not accept the right to exist of a Palestinian state. Hamas says they do not recognise the right to exist of a Jewish state
Click to expand...

You use the same phrasing, but these statements don't mean the same thing. When Israel doesn't recognize the right of a Palestinian state to exist, it isn't advocating for killing all the Palestinians or even kicking them off the land. They don't trust the Palestinians to wield the full sovereignty of a state which may wage war against them.

But Hamas doesn't stop there. They don't just want the Israeli government gone. They want to take all that land away, AND they're quite happy to kill every last Jew to get the job done. This isn't a symmetric situation, even though you try to frame it as such. Which makes your phrasing basically a lie.

I suspect if some positive moves had been made in 2017 then we wouldn't be where we are now.
Click to expand...

And there it is. There's where you blame Israel for being attacked.
 
In Planigale's formulation, The current Israeli government's refusal to accept a two-state solution is a hard and fast commitment, and a clear sign of Jewish perfidy. But Hamas's refusal to accept a two-state solution is just a reasonable starting position in a good faith negotiation.
 
theprestige said:
In Planigale's formulation, The current Israeli government's refusal to accept a two-state solution is a hard and fast commitment, and a clear sign of Jewish perfidy. But Hamas's refusal to accept a two-state solution is just a reasonable starting position in a good faith negotiation.
Click to expand...

Hamas said they would accept a two state solution. Likud / Netanyahu still say they will never accept this. See the difference?
 
Ziggurat said:
You use the same phrasing, but these statements don't mean the same thing. When Israel doesn't recognize the right of a Palestinian state to exist, it isn't advocating for killing all the Palestinians or even kicking them off the land. They don't trust the Palestinians to wield the full sovereignty of a state which may wage war against them.

But Hamas doesn't stop there. They don't just want the Israeli government gone. They want to take all that land away, AND they're quite happy to kill every last Jew to get the job done. This isn't a symmetric situation, even though you try to frame it as such. Which makes your phrasing basically a lie.



And there it is. There's where you blame Israel for being attacked.
Click to expand...

I think you may have missed web fusion's posts and the view of many right wing Israelis that say exactly this. Some extreme right wing members of the government even call for the extinction of all Gazans.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
Yes. Any other patronising questions?


Incorrect.
The current Israeli government does not accept a two-state solution. However, Israel is a democracy, and other parties- Meretz, Labour, Raam and the United Arab Party- endorse a two state solution.



No: incorrect again. You are being far too trusting of Hamas, and not reading what they're saying carefully enough.
What Hamas is saying is that the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders is a first step. Did you notice the preamble to that? "Without compromising the rights of Palestinians". Remember that? This is what that means:




No, they are not. Once again, I invite you to quote any part of the 2017 Hamas document that states that. What this is, is your wishful interpretation of what you hope Hamas is saying: it is far from reality.


When did this happen?
I mean, I know Bibi is an ********, who rejects the idea of a Palestinian state. What I'm not clear on is when these negotiations- or negotiation proposals- you mention here, took place.



Again, you'll get no argument from me about the awfulness of Trump, but it is not true to say he rejected a two-state solution.



It's merely propaganda. They've toned down the hate, the antisemitism and the bonkers conspiracy theories, in order to appease their gullible supporters around the world. Clearly, that ploy has been successful. Their overall goals have not changed at all- drive out the Jews and seize the entirety of Israel, but the new mask of moderation has convinced people- like yourself- that they really want peace. They don't. The 2017 document says so:




The 2017 statement was largely ignored by the US and Israel because it contained little that was new or productive, and was issued by a terrorist organisation, that reaffirmed its commitment to violence, denied Israel the right to exist, repudiated previous peace talks, and claimed the entirety of Jerusalem as its capital.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full
Click to expand...

I entirely accept if you don't want peace you can find reasons not to negotiate. You can easily parse the 2017 statement as unacceptable. The reality is that it did make a significant shift, you say it was just for the 'Western Audience' but that is not true, this was primarily an internal document. If you have a massive industrial-military complex like the US and Israel then a continual war is necessary.
 
Planigale said:
I entirely accept if you don't want peace you can find reasons not to negotiate. You can easily parse the 2017 statement as unacceptable. The reality is that it did make a significant shift, you say it was just for the 'Western Audience' but that is not true, this was primarily an internal document. If you have a massive industrial-military complex like the US and Israel then a continual war is necessary.
Click to expand...

Please justify your comment about the 2017 document in the light of subsequent statements by Hamas officals that continue to talk about the destruction of Israel as their goal.
You could also explain why you think the existence of the American MIC is a reason why Hamas has to opt for continual war.
 
Planigale said:
I entirely accept if you don't want peace you can find reasons not to negotiate. You can easily parse the 2017 statement as unacceptable.
Click to expand...
If people who promote terrorism as a means to their desired end present a peace document that is easily parsed as unacceptable, rational self-preservation tells you which parsing is safest for you. If they want an acceptable parsing, they need to renounce terrorism first. Maybe even put it in the next draft of their peace document, so there's no ambiguity and no unacceptable parsings.
 
Planigale said:
I think you may have missed web fusion's posts and the view of many right wing Israelis that say exactly this. Some extreme right wing members of the government even call for the extinction of all Gazans.
Click to expand...

And yet, that's not what Israel is doing. You make a lot of the idea that not all Palestinians want to exterminate the Jews, ignoring the fact that Hamas actually operates under that goal. But you latch on to fringe views in Israel, even though Israel doesn't.
 
Planigale said:
Hamas said they would accept a two state solution. Likud / Netanyahu still say they will never accept this. See the difference?
Click to expand...

Hamas is an avowed terrorist organization, notorious for its perfidy and crimes against humanity. Israel is past the point of negotiating with Hamas in any way about the future of Israel and Palestine. Maybe if some other Palestinian authority were to repudiate Hamas, renounce terrorism, and invite Israel to join them in purging the jihadists from Gaza and the West Bank, that authority might find that Israel is much more willing to talk to them about a two-state solution.

Meanwhile, nobody should be interested in a two-state solution as long as one of those states includes Hamas and its ilk. You know about the constant rocket attacks against Israeli civilians. You know about the atrocities of October 7th. You know that these are unacceptable and unjustifiable acts. Why do you imagine it's in Israel's interest to accept a "solution" that includes a state like that on Israel's borders?

Remove Hamas from the equation first. Then we'll see how Israelis feel about a two-state solution with not-Hamas.
 
(after this war) we'll see how Israelis feel about a two-state solution with not-Hamas.

I want to add, we'll also see how Palestinians feel about giving Israel some peace, with not-Hamas.
 
webfusion said:
(after this war) we'll see how Israelis feel about a two-state solution with not-Hamas.

I want to add, we'll also see how Palestinians feel about giving Israel some peace, with not-Hamas.
Click to expand...

I've seen it suggested in this thread or the other one, that today's Gazans didn't vote for Hamas, don't agree with Hamas, and really truly wish Hamas would die in a fire so that they can pursue peaceful solutions to their predicament.

So I'm hopeful that once the IDF finishes excising this cancer from Gaza's body politic, healing can and will begin.
 
theprestige said:
I've seen it suggested in this thread or the other one, that today's Gazans didn't vote for Hamas, don't agree with Hamas, and really truly wish Hamas would die in a fire so that they can pursue peaceful solutions to their predicament.

So I'm hopeful that once the IDF finishes excising this cancer from Gaza's body politic, healing can and will begin.
Click to expand...

You and me both, brother.
I've even gone so far as to provide a specific, in-detail, operational program for helping the Gazans achieve their dream of having a NewState.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlkBOMFK03A
 
webfusion said:
While stating that peace is going to bloom, only if Westabanky, Gazza, plus the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif/alAqsa are Palestineian, and Jews GTFO.

Somehow everyone here proposing this course of action by Israel, forgets to mention that OTHER part of Palestinian demands -- namely, the return of the refugees. 5 or 6 million of 'em (at latest spurious count).
Click to expand...

Ohk I think it goes beyond GTFO. I think a lot of people here, though they won't say so in so may words. want the Destruction of Israel.
 
webfusion said:
Planigale, the goal of what Israel is doing right now in Gaza has everything to do with pacifying the armed and dangerous jihadists, and overcoming their Islamic militancy capabilities so they don't any longer have the wherewithal to perpetrate violent attacks upon the peaceful villages, farms, towns and cities of the Jewish State.
Click to expand...

Ageed, though I have to wonder how effective current Israeli tactics are toward that edn.
 
Hercules56 said:
USA and UK discussing recognizing the State of Palestine in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem as soon as the war in Gaza is over.

This would be be a big step and give the Palestinians a sense of hope that their dream of statehood in historic Palestine is not dead.

:)

https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-784573
Click to expand...

You will never get Israel to give up the Old City of Jeruslam to Palestinain contorl.
IMHO the best solution to give the UN a mandate over the Old City, and get some nation that does ot have a religious dog in this hunt to actualy run it, but good look with that.
 
dudalb said:
You will never get Israel to give up the Old City of Jeruslam to Palestinain control.
IMHO the best solution to give the UN a mandate over the Old City, and get some nation that does not have a religious dog in this hunt to actually run it, but good look with that.
Click to expand...

The UN is 'non-grata' in Israel these days.

Interestingly, the one nation that legitimately may step in with a 'ceremonial' presence could be Saudi Arabia, which already is responsible for the other two main holy Islamic sites (Mecca/Medina).
If the Jordanian Hashemite King can be somehow persuaded to relinquish his current role as custodian over the Haram al-Sharif (WAQF) and lets the Royal Saudi Guards maintain a role there, it would serve a purpose of eliminating the Palestinian demand of having that role themselves. The Palestinians can't really express a desire to refuse the Saudis this honor, for the sake of peace. (and who is going to pay for the rebuilding of Gaza? Yep, the Saudis).

The Saudi Guards are really very snappy dressers, with elaborate uniforms and pageantry.
https://saudiarabesque.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/saudi-arabesque-national-guards-1.jpg

They could put together a daily "Changing of the Guards" similar to Buckingham Palace, and I guarantee, most everyone in Israel would be fine with it. Huge tourist draw, certainly.
 
webfusion said:
The UN is 'non-grata' in Israel these days.
Click to expand...

It should be non-grata in most places. When they aren't standing by while genocide takes place, they're spreading cholera.

What's the difference between Michael Jackson and Unicef?

Michael Jackson actually likes children.
 
dudalb said:
You will never get Israel to give up the Old City of Jeruslam to Palestinain contorl.
IMHO the best solution to give the UN a mandate over the Old City, and get some nation that does ot have a religious dog in this hunt to actualy run it, but good look with that.
Click to expand...

Old City should have special status, like The Vatican.
 
Hercules56 said:
Old City should have special status, like The Vatican.
Click to expand...

A sovereign nation-state, wholly governed and administered by one of the largest established religions on the planet, safe in the embrace of a military power that devoutly shares the same religion as the theocracy it harbors?

I'm interested in your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Only, unless you plan to abolish Israel and put yet another Islamic dictatorship in its place, I think you must mean that Jerusalem should be a Jewish nation-state, harbored and defended by a strong Jewish ethnostate.

ETA: Catholics have the Vatican. Not even all of Rome (though they're at home and welcome there, as well). Why is that that Muslims believe they are entitled to Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem? Three holy cities seems greedy. Claiming Jerusalem seems like a mean-spirited ploy to keep the Jews from having even one holy city. Add to that, Muslims also seem like they think they're entitled to resort to terrorist violence if their greedy claim to Jerusalem is challenged or thwarted in any way. Why are you so hell-bent on catering to their demands?
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
A sovereign nation-state, wholly governed and administered by one of the largest established religions on the planet, safe in the embrace of a military power that devoutly shares the same religion as the theocracy it harbors?

I'm interested in your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Only, unless you plan to abolish Israel and put yet another Islamic dictatorship in its place, I think you must mean that Jerusalem should be a Jewish nation-state, harbored and defended by a strong Jewish ethnostate.

ETA: Catholics have the Vatican. Not even all of Rome (though they're at home and welcome there, as well). Why is that that Muslims believe they are entitled to Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem? Three holy cities seems greedy. Claiming Jerusalem seems like a mean-spirited ploy to keep the Jews from having even one holy city. Add to that, Muslims also seem like they think they're entitled to resort to terrorist violence if their greedy claim to Jerusalem is challenged or thwarted in any way. Why are you so hell-bent on catering to their demands?
Click to expand...
If you think there is only one Jewish holy city you display ignorance that suggests you should not comment on these issues.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_...y Cities of,the Ottoman conquest of Palestine.

Hebron is certainly a flash point.
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
You will never get Israel to give up the Old City of Jeruslam to Palestinain contorl.
IMHO the best solution to give the UN a mandate over the Old City, and get some nation that does ot have a religious dog in this hunt to actualy run it, but good look with that.
Click to expand...

True. Some of the peace talks broke down because the Palestinians were insisting on sole control of the Haram Al-Sharif. The Israelis wanted Palestinian custodianship, not sovereign control, so they had a chance of accessing their holy site. The Palestinians refused- unsurprisingly. They want no Jews anywhere in the Middle East, and certainly not ones who have the cheek to want to practise their religion in their own religious places.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
A sovereign nation-state, wholly governed and administered by one of the largest established religions on the planet, safe in the embrace of a military power that devoutly shares the same religion as the theocracy it harbors?

I'm interested in your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Only, unless you plan to abolish Israel and put yet another Islamic dictatorship in its place, I think you must mean that Jerusalem should be a Jewish nation-state, harbored and defended by a strong Jewish ethnostate.

ETA: Catholics have the Vatican. Not even all of Rome (though they're at home and welcome there, as well). Why is that that Muslims believe they are entitled to Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem? Three holy cities seems greedy. Claiming Jerusalem seems like a mean-spirited ploy to keep the Jews from having even one holy city. Add to that, Muslims also seem like they think they're entitled to resort to terrorist violence if their greedy claim to Jerusalem is challenged or thwarted in any way. Why are you so hell-bent on catering to their demands?
Click to expand...

Old City is holy to three faiths, no reason why they can't all control it together.

Sharing is caring.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
True. Some of the peace talks broke down because the Palestinians were insisting on sole control of the Haram Al-Sharif. The Israelis wanted Palestinian custodianship, not sovereign control, so they had a chance of accessing their holy site. The Palestinians refused- unsurprisingly. They want no Jews anywhere in the Middle East, and certainly not ones who have the cheek to want to practise their religion in their own religious places.
Click to expand...

Irony, coming from the guy who wants who wants zero Palestinian sovereignity in the West Bank and wants to bribe the Palestinians to flee to Gaza.
 
Ziggurat said:
And there's no reason that Hamas can't renounce terrorism and surrender.
Click to expand...

what would satisfy you, or more importantly the Israeli leadership, as a surrender and renouncement of terrorism?

An official statement via twitter?
20+ known Hamas members turning themselves in ?
100?
All Palestinians swearing to never use violence against Israel again?

you are making, I think intentionally, a request that can never be fulfilled.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom