Palestine Wins U.N. Statehood, Next Up, War Crimes Trials Against Israel

[MnJetFan]

Jerusalem has and always be the capital of Israel both spirtitually and every other way. Frankly was there ever a Palestine except in the minds of the English!

[doggin94it]

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

Doggin, nothing shows more laziness then spewing the narrative of the main stream American media. And I can tell you with a great degree of certainty that the picture presented to us is not the full reality; not even close to it.

The average citizens who are caught up in the endless cycle of violence are the true victims, and they are on both sides.

You know what, enough of the BS. Do you have relatives in Israel? I do. Do you know anyone who has served in the IDF? I do. Know anyone who was injured in a Palestinian terror attack? I do. Know anyone who had to race to a shelter to get away from incoming rockets in Sderot? I do.

If you think my perspective comes from media, then with all due respect you aren't just mistaken, you're an idiot.

[doggin94it]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

The current government of Israel is annexing the West Bank and East Jerusalem while maintaining a harsh occupation on the actual residents living in those areas. What do you call that if not theft?

Well, let's start with a little reality: Israel is not "annexing the West Bank"

Let's move on to some history. On what basis do you claim that "East Jerusalem" ought to be "Palestinian Land" in which Jews ought not live?

And we can finish with some current events: Please provide a basis for your claim that people in the West Bank and "East Jerusalem" are suffering under a "harsh occupation"

The current Israeli government and Hamas have the same goal, a one State solution.

Odd, considering the current Israeli government has officially endorsed a two state solution and has repeatedly offered to negotiate with the Palestinians over its contours - offers the Palestinians have repeatedly refused.

The US, England and Germany are all allies of Israel and all condemn these settlements and they are right to condemn them.

Not if they have any interest in peace, they aren't

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by doggin94it

Well, let's start with a little reality: Israel is not "annexing the West Bank"

Let's move on to some history. On what basis do you claim that "East Jerusalem" ought to be "Palestinian Land" in which Jews ought not live?

And we can finish with some current events: Please provide a basis for your claim that people in the West Bank and "East Jerusalem" are suffering under a "harsh occupation"



Odd, considering the current Israeli government has officially endorsed a two state solution and has repeatedly offered to negotiate with the Palestinians over its contours - offers the Palestinians have repeatedly refused.



Not if they have any interest in peace, they aren't

Who said Jews shouldn't live in East Jerusalem? If they want to they should although East Jerusalem in a two State solution will not be part of Israel.

I believe Jews, like Christians and Muslims and anyone else should be able to live wherever they want to live. I don't think that's the issue. the should be able to live in the West Bank, Gaza, Syria and anywhere else.

You finally got to the point and that's the seperation of the West Bank from East Jerusalem which Israel is doing under this government.

They have officially endorsed while unofficially making it impossible to achieve. At some point Israel is going to have to come to terms with the fact that their friends, the US, Germany and England, solid allies who have almost unconditionally supported Israel aren't on board with this theft.

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

Who said Jews shouldn't live in East Jerusalem? If they want to they should although East Jerusalem in a two State solution will not be part of Israel.

I believe Jews, like Christians and Muslims and anyone else should be able to live wherever they want to live. I don't think that's the issue. the should be able to live in the West Bank, Gaza, Syria and anywhere else.

You finally got to the point and that's the seperation of the West Bank from East Jerusalem which Israel is doing under this government.

From a practical standpoint it is foolish to divide a CITY in half or divide it at all.
Jerusalem should be 100% governed by Israel. It can be visited by all.
A country for the Palestinians should be totally contiguous. Not a series of isolated enclaves. And certainly not the West Bank and Gaza. Let Egypt handle Gaza. I am not getting into geography but carve out a section along the Dead Sea and Jordan river and that's Palestine. MOve the border at least 20 miles away from Jersalem for security. Half the area currently designated as the West Bank should be Palestine, the remainder Israel.

[doggin94it]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

Who said Jews shouldn't live in East Jerusalem? If they want to they should although East Jerusalem in a two State solution will not be part of Israel.

I believe Jews, like Christians and Muslims and anyone else should be able to live wherever they want to live. I don't think that's the issue. the should be able to live in the West Bank, Gaza, Syria and anywhere else.

You finally got to the point and that's the seperation of the West Bank from East Jerusalem which Israel is doing under this government.

They have officially endorsed while unofficially making it impossible to achieve. At some point Israel is going to have to come to terms with the fact that their friends, the US, Germany and England, solid allies who have almost unconditionally supported Israel aren't on board with this theft.

You've managed to sidestep the question entirely. On what basis do you deny the legitimacy of Israel's claim to "east jerusalem"?

(Aside from that, the Palestinians have made repeatedly clear that any state of theirs will and must be Jew-free).

[doggin94it]

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

From a practical standpoint it is foolish to divide a CITY in half or divide it at all.
Jerusalem should be 100% governed by Israel. It can be visited by all.
A country for the Palestinians should be totally contiguous. Not a series of isolated enclaves. And certainly not the West Bank and Gaza. Let Egypt handle Gaza. I am not getting into geography but carve out a section along the Dead Sea and Jordan river and that's Palestine. MOve the border at least 20 miles away from Jersalem for security. Half the area currently designated as the West Bank should be Palestine, the remainder Israel.

A few points.

1) The most likely resolution is a Jerusalem 100% under two sovereigns, with Arab residents as Palestinian citizens, Jewish residents as Israeli citizens, and laws set up by some mechanism to be agreed upon.

2) You need to brush up on your geography - 20 miles away from Jerusalem puts you in Jordan. At its narrowest point, the Jordanian border is less than 20 kilometers from Jerusalem

[Axil]

Originally Posted by doggin94it

1) The most likely resolution is a Jerusalem 100% under two sovereigns, with Arab residents as Palestinian citizens, Jewish residents as Israeli citizens, and laws set up by some mechanism to be agreed upon.

This just seems like a cluster#### in the making. Do you really think such a thing will work? It seems to me sort of solution will just make it easier for Palestinians to kill Israelis, and after a circus act in the UN ask for a new "compromise".

If you believe that the primary motivation of Hamas is the death of Jews and destruction of all things Jewish, why would you work towards compromise at all?

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by doggin94it

A few points.

1) The most likely resolution is a Jerusalem 100% under two sovereigns, with Arab residents as Palestinian citizens, Jewish residents as Israeli citizens, and laws set up by some mechanism to be agreed upon.

2) You need to brush up on your geography - 20 miles away from Jerusalem puts you in Jordan. At its narrowest point, the Jordanian border is less than 20 kilometers from Jerusalem

On 1. Doesn't really make sense. The enemy in your lap. If an Arab wishes to LIVE in Jerusalem - no citizenship. Or they can move into their own territory and be Palestinian citizens.
On 2. The map I was looking at "seemed" to have 20 miles before you get to the Dead Sea. Perhaps the scale index was wrong.
At any rate, from a security standpoint - push the border a reasonable and good distance from the City of Jerusalem.

[doggin94it]

Originally Posted by Axil

This just seems like a cluster#### in the making. Do you really think such a thing will work? It seems to me sort of solution will just make it easier for Palestinians to kill Israelis, and after a circus act in the UN ask for a new "compromise".

If you believe that the primary motivation of Hamas is the death of Jews and destruction of all things Jewish, why would you work towards compromise at all?

I think the only workable structure is a "max-min" deal. That is, an agreement that includes a maximum of territory going to the Palestinians - say the 67 borders with land swaps + joint sovereignty over Jerusalem - with specific penalties for future attacks on Israel: the first attack removes Palestinian sovereignty over Jerusalem and makes it a wholly Israeli city; the second requires the turnover of additional land to the Israelis, and so on down to a minimum Palestinian state comprised of, say, something less than the Taba offer.

In other words, the Palestinians get the maximum Israel can give (anyone who thinks there will ever be a deal in which Israel has no sovereignty over the Old City is as nuts as anyone who thinks there will ever be a deal under which the Palestinians say "you know what, let's just go live in Jordan, you can have it), and they can keep it so long as they keep their commitments. If not - if "land for peace" becomes "land for slightly less war" (which, let's be frank, is likely) - then the Palestinians still have a state of their own but a vastly smaller one, and the Israelis get full, internationally recognized control over key pieces of disputed territory (including Jerusalem).

This should be a no-brainer for anyone who supports the Palestinians and truly believes the key to peace is Israeli withdrawal, btw; the only downside from the Palestinian perspective is if "peace" wouldn't really be "peace".

And if that's really a concern, how dare you ask Israel to agree to a "peace" deal in the first place?

[doggin94it]

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

On 1. Doesn't really make sense. The enemy in your lap. If an Arab wishes to LIVE in Jerusalem - no citizenship. Or they can move into their own territory and be Palestinian citizens.
On 2. The map I was looking at "seemed" to have 20 miles before you get to the Dead Sea. Perhaps the scale index was wrong.
At any rate, from a security standpoint - push the border a reasonable and good distance from the City of Jerusalem.

The dead sea is to the south. Jordan is to the east.

[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by doggin94it

I think the only workable structure is a "max-min" deal. That is, an agreement that includes a maximum of territory going to the Palestinians - say the 67 borders with land swaps + joint sovereignty over Jerusalem - with specific penalties for future attacks on Israel: the first attack removes Palestinian sovereignty over Jerusalem and makes it a wholly Israeli city; the second requires the turnover of additional land to the Israelis, and so on down to a minimum Palestinian state comprised of, say, something less than the Taba offer.

In other words, the Palestinians get the maximum Israel can give (anyone who thinks there will ever be a deal in which Israel has no sovereignty over the Old City is as nuts as anyone who thinks there will ever be a deal under which the Palestinians say "you know what, let's just go live in Jordan, you can have it), and they can keep it so long as they keep their commitments. If not - if "land for peace" becomes "land for slightly less war" (which, let's be frank, is likely) - then the Palestinians still have a state of their own but a vastly smaller one, and the Israelis get full, internationally recognized control over key pieces of disputed territory (including Jerusalem).

This should be a no-brainer for anyone who supports the Palestinians and truly believes the key to peace is Israeli withdrawal, btw; the only downside from the Palestinian perspective is if "peace" wouldn't really be "peace".

And if that's really a concern, how dare you ask Israel to agree to a "peace" deal in the first place?

I'm confused on your concept of Joint Sovereignty. I'm assuming you are referring to the Old City in Jerusalem. West Jerusalem is a large scale Israeli City. It could never be under joint Sovereignty. East Jerusalem by contrast is a large scale Arab Palestinian enclave and should be considered as something that can be given to the Palestinians in a future statehood agreement. The Old City has been under Israel's stewardship for the past 40+ years. It is not a large population center by any stretch. I consider it more of an Archaeological and spiritual treasure trove for Christians and Jews. Making that in to a joint custody situation would not be ideal but the terms you presented essentially insure that the Israelis would maintain control as the chance of a Palestinian State being peaceful with Israel is zero.

[Axil]

Originally Posted by doggin94it

I think the only workable structure is a "max-min" deal. That is, an agreement that includes a maximum of territory going to the Palestinians - say the 67 borders with land swaps + joint sovereignty over Jerusalem - with specific penalties for future attacks on Israel: the first attack removes Palestinian sovereignty over Jerusalem and makes it a wholly Israeli city; the second requires the turnover of additional land to the Israelis, and so on down to a minimum Palestinian state comprised of, say, something less than the Taba offer.

In other words, the Palestinians get the maximum Israel can give (anyone who thinks there will ever be a deal in which Israel has no sovereignty over the Old City is as nuts as anyone who thinks there will ever be a deal under which the Palestinians say "you know what, let's just go live in Jordan, you can have it), and they can keep it so long as they keep their commitments. If not - if "land for peace" becomes "land for slightly less war" (which, let's be frank, is likely) - then the Palestinians still have a state of their own but a vastly smaller one, and the Israelis get full, internationally recognized control over key pieces of disputed territory (including Jerusalem).

This should be a no-brainer for anyone who supports the Palestinians and truly believes the key to peace is Israeli withdrawal, btw; the only downside from the Palestinian perspective is if "peace" wouldn't really be "peace".

And if that's really a concern, how dare you ask Israel to agree to a "peace" deal in the first place?

I think you're giving the international community too much credit. I think a deal like this, no matter how it's structured ends up with a bunch of.

"Well Palestine didn't really break the peace, Israel must of provoked them."

and

"Well it wasn't the Palestinian government that planted those bombs in Jerusalem, those were just extremest!"

and even some

"I bet Israel agents killed there own people, just so they could impose the sanctions on the poor Palestinians, that must've been there plan all along!"

I hope you're right, and some sort of peace is possible. I don't believe it though, and i suspect that any concession that the Palestinians are given will be utilized to cause as much death, destruction and political strife for Israel as possible.

[intelligentjetsfan]

Originally Posted by doggin94it

You know what, enough of the BS. Do you have relatives in Israel? I do. Do you know anyone who has served in the IDF? I do. Know anyone who was injured in a Palestinian terror attack? I do. Know anyone who had to race to a shelter to get away from incoming rockets in Sderot? I do.

If you think my perspective comes from media, then with all due respect you aren't just mistaken, you're an idiot.

To answer your questions;

No I do not have relatives in Israel (just a few good friends).

Yes, I know someone in the IDF

No I don't know anyone who was injured in an attack

Yes, I know someone (more then one) who had to evade incoming fire.

I also know people from college who had family from Palestine.

So I apologize for stating that you only got your information from the American media but I will double down on my original assessment that the leaders from both sides have blood on their hands and the common citizens from both sides are the people who are caught in the endless cycle of violence.

[doggin94it]

Originally Posted by Axil

I think you're giving the international community too much credit. I think a deal like this, no matter how it's structured ends up with a bunch of.

"Well Palestine didn't really break the peace, Israel must of provoked them."

and

"Well it wasn't the Palestinian government that planted those bombs in Jerusalem, those were just extremest!"

and even some

"I bet Israel agents killed there own people, just so they could impose the sanctions on the poor Palestinians, that must've been there plan all along!"

Yep. I've talked about this with a number of relatively senior Israeli policy folks/experts - my Synagogue has a pretty amazing Scholar-in-Residence program; we've had everyone from pundits to retired government officials in - and that's the primary Israeli concern. I think it's a real one, but also one that can be addressed by sufficiently iron-clad verbiage to require the European countries to follow through; if so, the left street's reaction and the Arab world's reaction won't really be important, in the long run. The most important point is that type of provision would line up the incentives in such a way that there would actually be a rational basis to believe that the Palestinians might keep the deal; if 2 dead Israelis means the loss of Jerusalem, perhaps the balance will lean away from Jew hatred - if only because they know whoever does it would be forever reviled by palestinian society.

Interestingly enough, the most common reaction to the proposal from the "pro-palestinian" folks is exactly what was described above: "but it's not fair that the entire society should lose from the actions of a few" - in other words they, like the "pro-Israel" folks, are inclined to believe that, their own public protestations notwithstanding, the "end of the occupation" won't actually bring peace at all.

Which, again, leads to the question "in that case, why should Israel bother"?

I hope you're right, and some sort of peace is possible. I don't believe it though, and i suspect that any concession that the Palestinians are given will be utilized to cause as much death, destruction and political strife for Israel as possible.

That's my fear as well - and Israel's too, obviously. But that's exactly why a max-min deal makes sense. If you told Israel today that they could have internationally recognized control over Jerusalem and major settlement blocs and the end of international support for Palestinian claims over those areas if they recognized a Palestinian state in Gaza and a more contiguous "Area A" within the West Bank, they would leap at that deal even if there was no "peace" that came with it. By the same token, if you could guarantee Israel that the 67 Borders + Land Swaps formula would actually lead to peace, they would leap at that as well.

Israel's nightmare scenario is a 67 Borders + Land Swaps deal that doesn't lead to peace - meaning that Israel would have made critical concessions and not only received nothing in return, but made themselves more vulnerable to that continued war.

The problem, of course, is that is the most likely outcome. So for people to be focused on pressuring the Israelis is exactly the wrong approach if people want to achieve peace. Israel won't - can't - accede to a deal that leaves its worst nightmare as the most likely possibility. So either Palestinian society needs to fundamentally change to the point that the likely outcome is actually peace (which was supposed to happen throughout the Oslo process - it's precisely for that reason that one of the critical Palestinian commitments, entirely ignored, was ceasing incitement), or the Israelis need to be given incentives to take that risk. Carrots for the Israelis, not sticks, are what will make a peace deal possible.

And no, "peace" isn't enough of a carrot - not when no relevant policymaker believes they are actually likely to receive it.

[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by doggin94it

Yep. I've talked about this with a number of relatively senior Israeli policy folks/experts - my Synagogue has a pretty amazing Scholar-in-Residence program; we've had everyone from pundits to retired government officials in - and that's the primary Israeli concern. I think it's a real one, but also one that can be addressed by sufficiently iron-clad verbiage to require the European countries to follow through; if so, the left street's reaction and the Arab world's reaction won't really be important, in the long run. The most important point is that type of provision would line up the incentives in such a way that there would actually be a rational basis to believe that the Palestinians might keep the deal; if 2 dead Israelis means the loss of Jerusalem, perhaps the balance will lean away from Jew hatred - if only because they know whoever does it would be forever reviled by palestinian society.

Interestingly enough, the most common reaction to the proposal from the "pro-palestinian" folks is exactly what was described above: "but it's not fair that the entire society should lose from the actions of a few" - in other words they, like the "pro-Israel" folks, are inclined to believe that, their own public protestations notwithstanding, the "end of the occupation" won't actually bring peace at all.

Which, again, leads to the question "in that case, why should Israel bother"?



That's my fear as well - and Israel's too, obviously. But that's exactly why a max-min deal makes sense. If you told Israel today that they could have internationally recognized control over Jerusalem and major settlement blocs and the end of international support for Palestinian claims over those areas if they recognized a Palestinian state in Gaza and a more contiguous "Area A" within the West Bank, they would leap at that deal even if there was no "peace" that came with it. By the same token, if you could guarantee Israel that the 67 Borders + Land Swaps formula would actually lead to peace, they would leap at that as well.

Israel's nightmare scenario is a 67 Borders + Land Swaps deal that doesn't lead to peace - meaning that Israel would have made critical concessions and not only received nothing in return, but made themselves more vulnerable to that continued war.

The problem, of course, is that is the most likely outcome. So for people to be focused on pressuring the Israelis is exactly the wrong approach if people want to achieve peace. Israel won't - can't - accede to a deal that leaves its worst nightmare as the most likely possibility. So either Palestinian society needs to fundamentally change to the point that the likely outcome is actually peace (which was supposed to happen throughout the Oslo process - it's precisely for that reason that one of the critical Palestinian commitments, entirely ignored, was ceasing incitement), or the Israelis need to be given incentives to take that risk. Carrots for the Israelis, not sticks, are what will make a peace deal possible.

And no, "peace" isn't enough of a carrot - not when no relevant policymaker believes they are actually likely to receive it.

You nailed it.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by doggin94it

That's my fear as well - and Israel's too, obviously.

Israel's nightmare scenario is a 67 Borders + Land Swaps deal that doesn't lead to peace - meaning that Israel would have made critical concessions and not only received nothing in return, but made themselves more vulnerable to that continued war.

The answer to that is simple.

If Israel gives up everything that was asked, and violence still occurs, then Israel re-takes all of the contested land and forcefully ejects every single Palestinian from it. And that is made known up front and openly, right from the start of the agreement. One rocket, and the deal is off, and all the returned land is re-taken and it's population removed. Period.

And no, "peace" isn't enough of a carrot - not when no relevant policymaker believes they are actually likely to receive it.

Of course it isn't. If "peace" is a bargaining chip, the "more violence" becomes a tool to get more every and any time youw ant more, because the victim of your vioelnce must start with "peace" on their side of the demands, while you start with nothing.