Three-state solution?

Post Reply New Topic

Hey, if all parties can agree and there would be peace with this 3 state solution I'd be for it.

......and when they get it out of their charter that they want to push Israel into the sea (see the Hamas charter) ? Yep.



Agree.

I believe it isn't for us to figure out. However instead of the mediators and envoys, we should be putting external pressure on them meet, and they should be trying create momentum. I believe it would make sense to downgrade relations with both parties. As harsh as it seems, there is no incentive to do anything but delay, we need to take a tough line on this, rather than continue to enable this dysfunctional relationship. It is not about talking about solution, it only works if they are doing that.

My personal opinion there is something to it, but it also have some negs. Jordan, is the country that takes on a huge humanitarian burden from all the conflicts in the region. Resentment is a problem, in all countries with refugees. Administration, is inevitable going to have an economic impact.

It actually too early for these solutions IMO. They should be focusing on the more grass roots aspects first. Not pointing out the impassable part like Gaza. There are improvement to be made in the West Bank. But it not going to be done in one go.

If you want to genuine build trust, improve people's lives in a small but significant way, it is simple principle that works, Because in more hostile areas, thy will see that belligerent strategy is a false economy.

I believe there is the practical aspect of solution hat is being overlooked by ideological. So practically speaking any nation needs certain ingredients to be viable.

It seems that peace in the region is a pipe dream anyway.

It's doomed before it starts.

Jordan has made it abundantly clear through the decades that it wants nothing to do with the Palestinian population. They have gone so far as to give up their territorial claims not merely to the West Bank, but also to Jerusalem in order to avoide having to absorb the Palestinians into their population. They wouldn't touch this with a barge pole.

Meanwhile, the last thing the Egyptians want is the Gazan population. They are in a face-off with the Saudis over leadership of the Arab world, and they don't want the Iranians poking their noses into Arab affairs through their Hamas toehold. So they wouldn't touch it with a barge pole, either.

I'm not surprised. Would anyone sane want anything to do with the Palestinians? If even other Muslim Arab countries don't really support the Palestinians (apart from as a stick to beat Israel with), that says a lot I think.

Still, it was a nice idea.

The two-state solution would be workable if the antisemitism and annihilationism and terrorism from the Palestinians was completely removed, and they had dedicated themselves to becoming a responsible, liberal democracy.

A one-state solution would lead to genocide or expulsion of Jews in the Middle East or, at the very least, enormous bloodshed whenever Muslims are whipped up into an anti-Jewish frenzy. Not workable.

Abolishing Israel is not an option.

No one asks the Palestinians what they want, as usual.

Because they are an unruly and irrational lot. As an Israeli minister once said, the Palestinians never waste an opportunity to waste an opportunity. When the Palestinians regain their reason (if they ever regain their reason) then maybe they will be heeded.

ruveyn

Yes how dare those Amorite Palestinians dare feel any hostility towards the Master Race and their religion which teaches them they must perform genocide to claim the land "God gave them".

Deuteronomy 2:33–34

33 “aThe Lord our God delivered him 1over to us, and we 2bdefeated him with his sons and all his people.

34 “So we captured all his cities at that time and 1autterly destroyed 2the men, women and children of every city. We left no survivor.


[img][img][800:740]http://i1061.photobucket.com/albums/t472/Nambocttr/pallandloss_zps1fb7115d.jpg[/img][/img]

The Palestinians kept starting wars and they kept on losing them. To the victor, the spoils!

If the Arab speaking folk had accepted the U.N. Partition of 1946 none of this would have happened.

The Jews would have had the parcel they bought from the Ottoman Empire for cash and the Arab speaking folk would have had the rest.

ruveyn

Because they support the Hamas Charter and I wouldn't consider the opinions of genocidal people either.

its laughable how you refer to genocide in that context immediately below the graphic posted above.

It's laughable as there hasn't been any "Palestinian" land to begin with. The Palestinians were given the identity in the 1970s by other Arab countries after those same Arab governments had failed in wiping Israel from the map and killing Jews - twice in a twenty year period.

Can you tell me when there has ever been a fully-functioning 'Palestinian' state? You can't. Over the last hundred years, the Palestinians in the West Bank have been under the colonial rule of the Ottoman Empire, the colonial rule of the British under Mandate for Palestine, and then under Jordanian colonial rule.

I've never seen any documents from the Palestinians talking about the injustice of Jordanian colonialism or Ottoman colonialism or their desire to be a separate people before the 'Zionists' came along. And remember, in 1948 and 1967, the Palestinians didn't want their own state - they wanted an end to the Jewish state. The Jews and the UN have offered them their own state, over and over again for years.

The original plan was a good one - that the Jews and the Arabs share out the land, and recognising that there are two distinct religious communities with long histories in the region, and that both communities deserve to have equal rights and prosper.

I'm sorry. I consulted Wikipedia, Merriam-Webster, dictionary.com, thefreedictionary.com, Oxford English Dictionary, Encyclopedia Brittanica and (most importantly) the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, and none of these sources seem to support this particular definition of genocide.

Total population of the British Mandate in 1945: 1.76 million.
Palestinian population (West Bank and Gaza Strip) in 2007: 3.79 million.

If Israel is performing a genocide on the Palestinians, then they are unimaginably incompetent.

And it is a disservice to those who suffered actual genocides to use the word in such an utterly meaningless manner.

so a homogenous group requires a state for its annilhation to be considered genocide?

So tell me, what was Saddam Hussein attempting against the Kurds?

the length of time taken and competency of the perpetrators is irrelevant. Use your eyes and look at the map, in another thirty years the green areas will be expunged.

Last edited by thomas81 on 12 Mar 2013, 12:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Attempting is not succeeding. There are more Kurds now than there were when Hussein was gassing them.

ruveyn