(Ed) General Israel/Palestine discussion thread - Part 3

[webfusion]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I still think Jordan fulfills all those conditions and is actually that state.

Being realistic is part of the NSS proposal.
I do not think you'll find the King of Jordan willing to abandon his Royal position as Custodian of the AlAqsa/Haram Al-Sharif.

So, that leaves Gaza, and extending into the N.Sinai coastal salient towards el-Arish.
With connections to NEOM.

By the way, regarding the "Liberation of Palestine" --- a new online game glorifies killing Jews, and is simply disgusting, at so many levels.
https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-c...-israel-680622

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by webfusion

That is YOUR error, laughing at a proposal that has evaluated and considered every element of what the Palestinians themselves have been clamoring for all along.

Namely, a State of their own, with the ability to absorb some 11-million (at last spurious count) of their brethren now stateless worldwide.
A State that is 'contiguous' and has access to the outside world.
A State that provides them with an Islamic character, and is distinctly separated from the Jewish State of Israel.
A State that is economically viable and does not rely on the continued largesse of UNRWA.
A State with borders properly defined and recognized by Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria.

I suggest you stop guffawing for a moment, and read the proposal.
(In it, there is no mention of "all the Palestinians" moving into this NewState).

Just as there is no effort for "all Jews" to move to Israel.

It seems to me that the Palestinians should first receive what they are entitled to (i.e. the full West Bank and East Jerusalem).

Then, perhaps, more original solutions, such as a Gaza-Sinai state can perhaps be contemplated, as long as the Palestinians are not considered as garbage pushed to the desert.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

As it stands, Israel has no motive at all to withdraw any further, say, from the West Bank.

The current conflict is sometimes painful for Israelis too, for example when rockets are raining down on them from Gaza.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Michel H

It seems to me that the Palestinians should first receive what they are entitled to (i.e. the full West Bank and East Jerusalem).

Then, perhaps, more original solutions, such as a Gaza-Sinai state can perhaps be contemplated, as long as the Palestinians are not considered as garbage pushed to the desert.

The Palestinians are entitled to nothing, zero, zip, squat, nada.

Why? Their behavior over the last 40 years.

Now they must earn a state. No one owes it to them. They should have thought of that before they engaged in mindless terrorism against innocent civilians.

Something you and others forget is that unlike the Americans, or the British, the Jews have no time limit on patience. They will wait for the Palestinians to grow up, possibly for another 100 years. They will not give them a state in the West Bank until the day they have actually proved they can be peaceful and have earned their state. Not one day earlier.

Patience? The Jews got a ton. Try 2,000 years for starters.

And yes, the Jews can tolerate the status quo for another century. Sure, there will be rockets, the occasional suicide bombing, the occassional massacre. Won't chip away at their patience one bit. They have VERY little to gain and a TON to lose, by giving up the West Bank.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Michel H

And yet they don't seem to have government shutdowns in Gaza. Go figure.

They don't seem to have actual regular elections either. Go figure.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Michel H

And yet they don't seem to have government shutdowns in Gaza. Go figure.

They also don't have a real government, that works towards the needs of the people and has normal international recognition, trade, relations, etc.

But I'm glad you're satisfied with just Gaza, cuz if things keep going the way they are, it will be the Palestinians only "state" for another 100 years.

[webfusion]

Now the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah is requesting "International Protection" because the IDF is chasing down and terminating armed terrorists all over the place!

https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-c...tection-680702

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by webfusion

Now the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah is requesting "International Protection" because the IDF is chasing down and terminating armed terrorists all over the place!

https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-c...tection-680702

The article you mentioned says:

Quote:

Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), meanwhile, called on Palestinians to step up the “resistance” against Israel, in response to the killing of a gunman near Jenin and a woman who tried to stab police officers in the Old City of Jerusalem early Thursday.

One may perhaps point out that both of these incidents took place in occupied land, where in principle there should be no Israeli troops and no Israeli policemen.

[webfusion]

Originally Posted by Michel H

The article you mentioned says: ("Jenin")

One may perhaps point out that both of these incidents took place in occupied land, where in principle there should be no Israeli troops and no Israeli policemen.

Keep dreaming, dude.

Jenin is going to remain occupied, and the people therein cannot harbor terrorists without repercussions. The Occupier has a responsibility to prevent such actions.
Look it up.

"The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety."

Which is what we are doing. Precisely what we are doing.
Islamic Jihad and Hamas will face their well-deserved fates. Trust me on this.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by webfusion

Keep dreaming, dude.

Jenin is going to remain occupied, and the people therein cannot harbor terrorists without repercussions. The Occupier has a responsibility to prevent such actions.
Look it up.

"The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety."

Which is what we are doing. Precisely what we are doing.
Islamic Jihad and Hamas will face their well-deserved fates. Trust me on this.

Quote:

Which is what we are doing.

Unless you believe that fighting illegal occupying forces is actually a proper way to try to restore international public order and safety.

[webfusion]

Originally Posted by Michel H

Unless you believe that fighting illegal occupying forces is actually a proper way to try to restore international public order and safety.

Show me a law that makes Israel's occupation of Judea and Samaria illegal.

I'll wait.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Michel H

Unless you believe that fighting illegal occupying forces is actually a proper way to try to restore international public order and safety.

Palestinian terrorists prefer to attack civilian targets. They actually do very little attacking of the actual occupying forces. And your romanticizing of terrorisms is reprehensible.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by webfusion

Show me a law that makes Israel's occupation of Judea and Samaria illegal.

I'll wait.

You can perhaps read this:

Quote:

GENEVA (20 June 2019) - Recent statements by senior Israeli political leaders and US diplomats in support of the annexation of parts or all of the occupied West Bank by Israel fly in the face of the absolute prohibition against the annexation of occupied territories, a UN human rights expert said today.

“International law is very clear: annexation and territorial conquest are forbidden by the Charter of the United Nations,” said Michael Lynk, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967. “The Security Council, beginning with Resolution 242 in November 1967, has expressly affirmed the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war or force on eight occasions, most recently in 2016.”

(https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/...24716&LangID=E).

You might also want to take a look at Resolution 2334:

Quote:

The resolution states that Israel's settlement activity constitutes a "flagrant violation" of international law and has "no legal validity".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...esolution_2334.

It is interesting to read the actual resolution: https://undocs.org/S/RES/2334(2016). Perhaps every Israeli citizen should do this every morning (and it should be widely taught in Israeli schools).

It is likely that many Israeli citizens (including top leaders) are convinced that it would be impossible for them to be happy and secure without East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

But I think that this is actually completely false, and one of the reasons is that there needs to be no mass evacuation: the settlers could remain where they are now, as residents of Palestine, with a decent protection, that the Palestinian Authority would presumably be happy to grant (but they are not often asked).

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Palestinian terrorists prefer to attack civilian targets. They actually do very little attacking of the actual occupying forces. And your romanticizing of terrorisms is reprehensible.

In this latest case mentioned by webfusion (https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-c...tection-680702), Palestinians attacked in fact soldiers and policemen, not civilian targets (soldiers near Jenin, and policemen in Jerusalem). No Israeli civilian was injured.

Some details may be found on this webpage in French: https://french.palinfo.com/news/2021...tyr-Alaa-Zyoud.

Defending the land during an invasion is allowed (as far as I know) under standard international law.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Michel H

In this latest case mentioned by webfusion (https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-c...tection-680702), Palestinians attacked in fact soldiers and policemen, not civilian targets (soldiers near Jenin, and policemen in Jerusalem). No Israeli civilian was injured.

Some details may be found on this webpage in French: https://french.palinfo.com/news/2021...tyr-Alaa-Zyoud.

Defending the land during an invasion is allowed (as far as I know) under standard international law.

This isn't during an invasion. The invasion was decades ago. And the standard international law you refer to still requires combatants to be indicated as such (ie, you can't disguise your soldiers as civilians). So this is still a war crime on the part of the Palestinians, using the standards you want to use.

Your simping for terrorists grows tiresome.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Michel H

But I think that this is actually completely false, and one of the reasons is that there needs to be no mass evacuation: the settlers could remain where they are now, as residents of Palestine, with a decent protection, that the Palestinian Authority would presumably be happy to grant (but they are not often asked).

Bwahahahahahaha!

No. This is beyond stupid.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

This isn't during an invasion. The invasion was decades ago. And the standard international law you refer to still requires combatants to be indicated as such (ie, you can't disguise your soldiers as civilians). So this is still a war crime on the part of the Palestinians, using the standards you want to use.

Your simping for terrorists grows tiresome.

The Palestinian Authority has no military:

Quote:

The State of Palestine has no land army, nor an air force or a navy.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palest...urity_Services).

Have you heard of the French Resistance? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Resistance).

I believe that the real terrorists are those who invade other nations using military force, and remain there illegally for more than 50 tears, and your frequent use of the word "stupid" won't change anything to this.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Michel H

The Palestinian Authority has no military:

Then they don't have any legitimate claim to take military action, do they?

Quote:

Have you heard of the French Resistance?

They were, technically speaking, war criminals.

You can either appeal to legality, or you can appeal to morality. But you can't just switch between them to try to suit your mood. And it's particularly ironic here, since Palestinian terrorism isn't justifiable on either legal or moral grounds.

Hell, you can't even justify it on purely practical grounds. It doesn't work. It doesn't accomplish its stated goal. It is demonstrably counter-productive.

Which might lead one to conclude that Palestinians are idiots. But that itself would be a foolish conclusion. What it SHOULD lead one to conclude (but undoubtedly you won't even consider) is that the real reasons for continued Palestinian terrorism have little to do with the nominal motivations.

Quote:

I believe that the real terrorists are those who invade other nations using military force, and remain there illegally for more than 50 tears, and your frequent use of the word "stupid" won't change anything to this.

No, I don't expect anything I say to change your beliefs. You didn't form them out of careful consideration of the complex realities of the situation, so facts aren't really relevant.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Michel H

The Palestinian Authority has no military:

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palest...urity_Services).

Have you heard of the French Resistance? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Resistance).

I believe that the real terrorists are those who invade other nations using military force, and remain there illegally for more than 50 tears, and your frequent use of the word "stupid" won't change anything to this.

There will be no Palestinian state until they understand there is no honor in murdering innocent Israeli civilians. The Jews simply won't allow it.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Michel H

It is likely that many Israeli citizens (including top leaders) are convinced that it would be impossible for them to be happy and secure without East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

But I think that this is actually completely false, and one of the reasons is that there needs to be no mass evacuation: the settlers could remain where they are now, as residents of Palestine, with a decent protection, that the Palestinian Authority would presumably be happy to grant (but they are not often asked).

I have to laugh.

You actually think the Palestinians would allow 600,000 Jews to remain in their settlement homes inside a State of Palestine. My friend, you clearly do not know the Palestinians and their hatred for Israelis.

[webfusion]

MichelH, I am realizing where your confusion is coming from.

Israel did not invade/occupy "Palestinian Lands" in the June 1967 war (the SixDay War).
At the time of the outbreak of that military engagement, the defining terms of land demarcations revolved around the 1949 Rhodes Armistice (cease-fire-in-place) Agreements, as they pertained to Jordanian Armed Forces, Egyptian Armed Forces, Syrian Armed Forces (and even Lebanon's Armed Forces, and Iraqi Expeditionary Forces), as they were the occupying powers of some parts of Historical Palestine, at the conclusion of the 1947-49 War of Israel's Independence.

As it happened, those Agreements specifically indicated, in plain language, that the demarcations of the cease-fire lines were absolutely NOT to be construed or defined as "Borders" but rather, dictated exclusively by military considerations (i.e. -- where combatant troops were facing each other on the ground as the Rhodes Armistices came into force).

Now, with the Rhodes Agreements in mind, the Israeli Jewish citizenry pressed their Government to seek a peaceful resolution, and negotiate with the various Arab surrounding enemy nations to achieve a modus-vivendi between them and Israel. Those efforts failed to bear fruit from 1949 through June 1967. (in fact, not only did the efforts go nowhere, but Israel was forced to war in 1956 to keep their rights of navigation through the Suez Canal, rights which had been trampled by Egypt, despite "International Guarantees" to allow & protect Israeli shipping rights).

Fast forward to May 1967, as Egypt threatened the Jews of Israel with total annilhilation.

Israel won the battles, again.
The infamous Khartoum Resolution was the response to Israel's victory in that defensive war of 1967 (As eight Arab heads of state attended a summit conference in Khartoum, Sudan, August 29 to September 1, 1967 -- where they formulated the consensus of the “Three No's” principle, contained in a press release: No peace with Israel, No negotiations with Israel, No recognition of Israel.)

By 1973 (a mere 6 years later) the sudden attack on Yom Kippur -- the holiest day of Judaism's tradition & culture -- led to yet another Arab defeat, at tremendous cost in lives to the Jews of Israel.

In that context, Israelis realized that keeping our positions on the high ground (the hills of Judea and Samaria, as well as the Golan) was vital for our survival in any future conflicts.
Many settlements thus began as 'Nahal' settlements. They were initially established as military bases and later expanded and populated with civilian inhabitants.
Not a single Israeli Jew was forced to take up residence in these encampments.
The entire movement of Jews to establish their homes in Gaza and Judea & Samaria and Golan was voluntary, for various economic, social, and religious reasons.

That situation exists, to this day. (ed. -- with the exception of Gaza, which has been ethnically-cleansed of Jews, as a result of Islamic terrorism).

Palestinians have their own leadership (a Palestinian National Authority, claiming to be at the head of a 'State' without defined borders) and I have yet to see them go beyond Khartoum's attitude, or Cairo's Three-Phased-Plan*, in any meaningful manner, except as public-relations to soften the West to accede to their demands.


*https://iris.org.il/plophase.htm
The plan in brief:
Through the "armed struggle" (i.e., terrorism), to establish an "independent combatant national authority" over any territory that is "liberated" from Israeli rule. (Article 2)
To continue the struggle against Israel, using the territory of the national authority as a base of operations. (Article 4)
To provoke an all-out war in which Israel's Arab neighbors destroy it entirely ("liberate all Palestinian territory"). (Article 8)

[webfusion]

Just to add: (referencing MichelH's use of Michael Lynk as some sort of reputable source)
Michael Lynk and his uncle, Faisal Joseph, a lawyer and prominent Muslim community leader also living in London, Ontario, are active in promoting Palestinian issues.

In other words, a partisan, on the side of the Palestinians.
July 2021, Lynk was called anti-semitic for remarks he made at the U.N. Human Rights Council that "I conclude that the Israeli settlements do amount to a war crime,” as he called on countries to inflict a cost on Israel for its "illegal occupation".
In response, Israel's mission to the UN in Geneva accused the UNHRC of anti-Israel bias. Yeah, that UNHRC, which is mired in anti-Israel sentiment.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by webfusion

Just to add: (referencing MichelH's use of Michael Lynk as some sort of reputable source)
Michael Lynk and his uncle, Faisal Joseph, a lawyer and prominent Muslim community leader also living in London, Ontario, are active in promoting Palestinian issues.

In other words, a partisan, on the side of the Palestinians.
July 2021, Lynk was called anti-semitic for remarks he made at the U.N. Human Rights Council that "I conclude that the Israeli settlements do amount to a war crime,” as he called on countries to inflict a cost on Israel for its "illegal occupation".
In response, Israel's mission to the UN in Geneva accused the UNHRC of anti-Israel bias. Yeah, that UNHRC, which is mired in anti-Israel sentiment.

About Michael Lynk, wikipedia says:

Quote:

Lynk is an associate professor of law at the University of Western Ontario. He was initially appointed in 1999, and taught courses in labor, human rights, disability, constitutional and administrative law. He served as associate dean of the faculty between 2008-11.[2] In January 2015, Lynk was named to the Mayor of London’s Honours List for his work on humanitarian issues[2]
...
Lynk and his uncle, Faisal Joseph, a lawyer and prominent Muslim community leader also living in London, Ontario, are active in promoting Palestinian issues.[3]

In 2016, Lynk was appointed “Special Rapporteur for the human rights situation in the Palestinian Territories occupied since 1967” by Jordanian diplomat Prince Zeid Ra’ad Zeid al-Hussein, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Lynk).

They are many things you omitted to say about professor Lynk, webfusion.

Besides, if you don't like what the official UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967 has to say, you can read the U.N. Charter and relevant U.N. resolutions (see my posts above), and their discussions on wikipedia, and come to a roughly equivalent conclusion.

Branding "antisemitic" all those who oppose their cynical conquests is a common tactics used by Israeli leaders and their supporters, even when criticism is objective.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

I have to laugh.

You actually think the Palestinians would allow 600,000 Jews to remain in their settlement homes inside a State of Palestine. My friend, you clearly do not know the Palestinians and their hatred for Israelis.

This idea seems reasonable to me, and has been considered seriously:

Quote:

Proposal of dual citizenship
A number of proposals for the granting of Palestinian citizenship or residential permits to Jewish settlers in return for the removal of Israeli military installations from the West Bank have been fielded by such individuals[326] as Arafat,[327] Ibrahim Sarsur[328] and Ahmed Qurei.[329] In contrast, Mahmoud Abbas said in July 2013 that "In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli—civilian or soldier—on our lands."[330]

Israeli Minister Moshe Ya'alon said in April 2010 that "just as Arabs live in Israel, so, too, should Jews be able to live in Palestine." ... "If we are talking about coexistence and peace, why the [Palestinian] insistence that the territory they receive be ethnically cleansed of Jews?".[331]

The idea has been expressed by both advocates of the two-state solution[290] and supporters of the settlers and conservative or fundamentalist currents in Israeli Judaism[291] that, while objecting to any withdrawal, claim stronger links to the land than to the State of Israel.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel...al_citizenship).

Ahmed Qurei is a former Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority.

[webfusion]

I am not a proponent of using WIKI to form my worldview on this conflict.
Especially when I see efforts to edit WIKI (to correct the record as necessary) ending up being part of the infowars, with Palestinian-supporters refusing to allow proper and fair edits, and removing them.

Ahmed Qurei (nom-de-guerre Abu Alla) was the Palestine Liberation Organization's "money-man" and is today highly unpopular among the Palestinians, because he is part of the "elite" and is not trusted to have the "interests" of Palestinians at heart.
(Especially the Oslo fiasco)

Gaza is TODAY, the de-facto Palestinian State. It is Judenrein, which suits the Arabs therein just fine.

Israel is not going to withdraw back to the 1949 Rhodes Armistice Lines. Not tomorrow, not next year, not ever.
Our required actions against terrorists will continue unabated, and the PLO, Hamas, I-J, and other Islamist Jihadi groups can expect to be hunted down, arrested, and/or killed for 'resisting' those efforts.

I label people anti-semitic because they clearly are, in words and deeds.
Exclusively focusing on the Jewish State of Israel to the exclusion of spending even one moment of their time in condemning human-rights violators around the world, is the clear anti-semitic double-standard by definition.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Michel H

This idea seems reasonable to me, and has been considered seriously:

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel...al_citizenship).

Ahmed Qurei is a former Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority.

"In contrast, Mahmoud Abbas said in July 2013 that "In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli—civilian or soldier—on our lands."

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by webfusion

MichelH, I am realizing where your confusion is coming from.

Israel did not invade/occupy "Palestinian Lands" in the June 1967 war (the SixDay War)....

Actually, the United States and many other nations considered the West Bank after 1948 to be "Arab Palestine".

Its also the resounding logic of the UN and most of the planet Earth, to this day. Or one could say that Israel invaded/occupied Jordanian lands.

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Actually, the United States and many other nations considered the West Bank after 1948 to be "Arab Palestine".

Its also the resounding logic of the UN and most of the planet Earth, to this day. Or one could say that Israel invaded/occupied Jordanian lands.

One of the benefits of this forum is the education one receives.
I was prompted to look this up. (Yes, sorry webfusion, it's Wiki again!)
It turns out that the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank was condemned by the Arab world, and was widely regarded as illegal.
To restate something I said many times before: the Arabs were, and are, in many instances, the Palestinians' worst enemies. They've been soundly shafted by their so-called Muslim Arab brothers, and this process is still continuing to this day. Holding Israel alone responsible for this conflict is a convenient way of simultaneously attacking the Jews and drawing attention away from the domestic problems of the Arab world.
(The section on access to holy sites is also worth reading, in the light of Michel H's comments about Jews living in a future Palestine).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan..._the_West_Bank

[webfusion]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Actually, the United States and many other nations considered the West Bank after 1948 to be "Arab Palestine".

Its also the resounding logic of the UN and most of the planet Earth, to this day. Or one could say that Israel invaded/occupied Jordanian lands.

The clock did not start in 1947-49.
It started in the 1890's, prior to WW One.

The League of Nations came along and made decisions about the ex-Turkish/Ottoman lands, and divided it up. The British, in the Balfour Declaration, made an effort to establish a Jewish Homeland, after the conquest of that entire area.

Jordanian takeover of the "West Bank" was not recognized by most of the planet Earth (with the exception of Great Britain and Pakistan, the only 2 countries that recognized Jordan's annexation and occupation).

Israel has a legitimate claim to those lands. It is not illegal for Jews to live there, and it most certainly is not a foregone conclusion that a PalestineState will arise in the hills.

The beauty of the NSS (NewState of Gaza/N.Sinai) is that it disconnects the Palestinian National Authority from their entrenched positions regarding the Temple Mount (places it into the baliwick of the Hashemite Bedouins, not the Palestinians), and makes a contiguous and separate Nation State on the coast that doesn't infringe on Israel's claims to the heartland of Judaism's traditional and historic center.

Abbas ain't gonna live forever. He's the Old Guard, and ready to leave the entire mess to the younger generation.
They might conclude that having a NewState in proximity to NEOM is in their interests, instead of maintaining the 19th-century vision of biffing the Jews.
https://www.neom.com/en-us

That is my hope, anyway.

[webfusion]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

One of the benefits of this forum is the education one receives.
I was prompted to look this up. (Yes, sorry webfusion, it's Wiki again!)
It turns out that the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank was condemned by the Arab world, and was widely regarded as illegal.
To restate something I said many times before: the Arabs were, and are, in many instances, the Palestinians' worst enemies. They've been soundly shafted by their so-called Muslim Arab brothers, and this process is still continuing to this day. Holding Israel alone responsible for this conflict is a convenient way of simultaneously attacking the Jews and drawing attention away from the domestic problems of the Arab world.
(The section on access to holy sites is also worth reading, in the light of Michel H's comments about Jews living in a future Palestine).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan..._the_West_Bank

We posted at the same time, essentially making some of the same points!

What we are seeing in 2021/2022 is a rethinking of Arab positions regarding Israel.
The Gulf Emirates (probably soon to be joined by Saudi Arabia) are looking at Israel as a partner in their own development. The Palestinians are considered to be in their way, which is why I believe that in conjunction with NEOM, the Gaza/Sinai NewState can become a goal for everyone to pursue.

Why do I keep referring to NEOM (a program that most people have likely never heard of)? Because it fits into the NSS perfectly. It offers the average Palestinians a way out of their "Anti-Israel" quagmire and releases them to retake control of their society from the armed gangs of radical Islamists.

I mean, really, who thinks that $800-million for UNRWA these days is a good idea?
And who thinks that UNRWA is even gonna GET that money?
https://english.wafa.ps/Pages/Details/126298

[webfusion]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

"In contrast, Mahmoud Abbas said in July 2013 that "In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli—civilian or soldier—on our lands."

Yeah, I also noted that MichelH highlighted (in yellow) a portion of his reference, and ignored highlighting the more recent one by the actual leader TODAY of the Palestinian National Authority.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by webfusion

Yeah, I also noted that MichelH highlighted (in yellow) a portion of his reference, and ignored highlighting the more recent one by the actual leader TODAY of the Palestinian National Authority.

This sentence in wikipedia:

Quote:

In contrast, Mahmoud Abbas said in July 2013 that "In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli—civilian or soldier—on our lands."[330]

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel...al_citizenship)
seems a little misleading to me (refusing Israelis does not mean refusing settlers). I believe you may have here an opportunity to successfully edit wikipedia, webfusion.

The Times of Israel explained on 27 January 2014:

Quote:

The Palestinian refusal to accept Israeli settlers in their future state does not stem from anti-Jewish sentiment, Palestinian officials said on Monday. Hanan Ashrawi, a member of the PLO Executive Committee, told The Times of Israel that Jews and members of all religions would have the right to apply for Palestinian citizenship. But “Palestine” could not accept “ex-territorial Jewish enclaves” where residents maintained their Israeli citizenship status, she said.

(https://www.timesofisrael.com/palest...-in-our-state/).

From the same article:

Quote:

Some Jewish settlers, too, would be willing to entertain the idea of remaining under Palestinian sovereignty. Nachum Pachenik, a resident of the Etzion bloc south of Jerusalem, told The Times of Israel last May that true peace could only be achieved if all parties involved remain in their homes.

I personally think that most settlers should be given the right to stay as residents, while retaining their Israeli citizenship, after a hypothetical Israeli withdrawal.

[webfusion]

MichalH, I personally believe that the relatively few Palestinians who decide to remain (they will be influenced to leave the West Bank by substantial compensation and incentives, including free housing, jobs, energy independence, etc... in their NewState on the Mediterranean coastline), will be granted Israeli citizenship, or residency.


The NSS proposal specifies that exact option.
https://www.facebook.com/TheNewStateSolution

By the way, WIKI doesn't have a page for the NewStateSolution (NSS)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...ch&go=Go&ns0=1
If I were to invest some considerable energy on substantial editing/writing for WIKI, this would be something to consider, by establishing an article for it.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Michel H

This sentence in wikipedia:

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel...al_citizenship)
seems a little misleading to me (refusing Israelis does not mean refusing settlers). I believe you may have here an opportunity to successfully edit wikipedia, webfusion.

The Times of Israel explained on 27 January 2014:

(https://www.timesofisrael.com/palest...-in-our-state/).

From the same article:


I personally think that most settlers should be given the right to stay as residents, while retaining their Israeli citizenship, after a hypothetical Israeli withdrawal.

The Palestinians and their supporters dont give a damn what you think. They want the Jews out.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

The Palestinians and their supporters dont give a damn what you think. They want the Jews out.

I think that you didn't read carefully my post #2112, Hercules56 (see the highlighted part).

Perhaps they care a lot about what Hercules56 thinks?

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by Michel H

I think that you didn't read carefully my post #2112, Hercules56 (see the highlighted part).

Perhaps they care a lot about what Hercules56 thinks?

I think we should care more what Hamas and Islamic Jihad think.
Do you think they will accept the presence of Jews in a Palestinian state?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Michel H

I personally think that most settlers should be given the right to stay as residents, while retaining their Israeli citizenship, after a hypothetical Israeli withdrawal.

You know the Palestinians won't agree to that, right? The terrorism is aimed at driving off the settlers. The Israeli military presence is necessary to protect the settlers. If the Israelis withdraw, the settlers will be driven off or eliminated shortly thereafter.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by theprestige

You know the Palestinians won't agree to that, right? The terrorism is aimed at driving off the settlers. The Israeli military presence is necessary to protect the settlers. If the Israelis withdraw, the settlers will be driven off or eliminated shortly thereafter.

Maybe he knows but is indifferent to such an outcome. Maybe he figures that at least the Palestinians will settle down once they've driven off/killed all the Jews, and that's the important part. A small price to pay for peace, and after all, he's not paying it.

Or maybe he doesn't know. Maybe he's honestly ignorant to the depths of hatred and antisemitism in which Palestinians are indoctrinated. Maybe he really thinks that the whole world can sing Kumbaya. Maybe he's the type who would still be singing Stalin's praises as the purge lined him up against the wall, convinced to the end that it was all a mistake and surely it would get sorted out.

I honestly can't tell what he knows, and I'm not even sure which possibility is worse.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

I think we should care more what Hamas and Islamic Jihad think.
Do you think they will accept the presence of Jews in a Palestinian state?

Since Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian legislative election (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_P...ative_election), it seems logical (from a democratic point of view) to ask Hamas for their opinion about this issue.

The Times of Israel published this in 2014 (this gives a certain state of mind among Palestinians):

Quote:

Palestinians: Yes to Jews, no to settlers in our state

The Palestinian refusal to accept Israeli settlers in their future state does not stem from anti-Jewish sentiment, Palestinian officials said on Monday. Hanan Ashrawi, a member of the PLO Executive Committee, told The Times of Israel that Jews and members of all religions would have the right to apply for Palestinian citizenship. But “Palestine” could not accept “ex-territorial Jewish enclaves” where residents maintained their Israeli citizenship status, she said.
...
In an interview with official PA daily Al-Ayyam Monday, Erekat said the Palestinian position has nothing to do with singling out Jews.

“If Netanyahu argues that these positions are against Jews, we say to him that two Jews were elected in 2009 as members of Fatah’s Revolutionary Council: Ilan Halevi and Uri Davis,” Erekat said. “Our position is against settlements, considering them illegal and contrary to all international laws.”

(https://www.timesofisrael.com/palest...-in-our-state/).

Obviously, Hamas members would be delighted to see the end of the occupation and a lifting of the Gaza blockade, and would perhaps quickly claim that this has happened thanks to their armed struggle, and, not being idiots (hopefully), they would probably be willing to accept some reasonable concessions.

Keeping the settlers in Palestine could be very interesting for the Palestinians, because they (the Palestinians) would benefit from their economic talents (of the settlers), and they would also be good taxpayers.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by theprestige

You know the Palestinians won't agree to that, right? The terrorism is aimed at driving off the settlers. The Israeli military presence is necessary to protect the settlers. If the Israelis withdraw, the settlers will be driven off or eliminated shortly thereafter.

Perhaps it would be necessary to set up an international protection force to protect the settlers for some time, after an hypothetical Israeli withdrawal.