Israel pushes plans for 3000 new settlements

[acidhead]

First, they didn't offer them land, they offered them a 'home' in someone else's land. The British made it illegal for Jews to buy land in 90% of Palestine because this fact was recognised.

They offered the National Home to them for their help in WW1. Which is part of what led to their persecution in Germany up to and during WW2.

And a large part of the reason that they were offered land in Palestine, it should be noted, was because many Brits were religious Christian Zionists (Churchill was one).

Also, they looked at many places for a home, but Zionism and Zionist leaders had already been pushing for the Holy Land for decades.

First, they didn't offer them land, they offered them a 'home' in someone else's land. The British made it illegal for Jews to buy land in 90% of Palestine because this fact was recognised.

They offered the National Home to them for their help in WW1. Which is part of what led to their persecution in Germany up to and during WW2.

And a large part of the reason that they were offered land in Palestine, it should be noted, was because many Brits were religious Christian Zionists (Churchill was one).

Also, they looked at many places for a home, but Zionism and Zionist leaders had already been pushing for the Holy Land for decades.

NYC would have been a great place.

[Guest]

NYC would have been a great place.

Indeed it would - far more appropriate than Palestine

Br Cornelius

[Erikl]

Palestine is a nation then? Then it's time that Israel treated it as such. Get your goons and dozers, your fences and settlers out of there and respect some sovereignty already.

And yet you would have us believe the nonsense that 'all Arabs were the same';'there were no cultural differences';'therefore Palestinians didn't have a right to their own country, but 2000 years removed and watered down Jews do'. Doesn't really cut it when you consider just how their 'brothers' have treated them.

Yamato and Ex, Ofcourse today there is a Palestinian nation. Don't twist my words - I've never there aren't. I specifically said that denying this today is stupid.

I was, however, criticizing and attacking your attempt to claim that this newly created nation in fact existed for centuries and that what they consider as Palestine today, wasn't the creation of British colonialism, but was in it's form their ancient country which was somehow belonged to them more than to the Jews.

And the fact that Palestinian are treated that way by their brethren is repulsive, yet has nothing to do with the uniquness of the Palestinians, but more to the cynicism of the Arab states that have no problem using millions of thier own people as hostages in their conflict against Israel.

There is no real reason why these people shouldn't become Lebanese, Syrians, etc. Heck, they live in Lebanon or Syria more than they lived under British Mandate of Palestine. The only two countries in the region to give full citizenship to the Palestinians are Israel and Jordan.

[Erikl]

they offered them a 'home' in someone else's land.

Rubbish. There was no Palestine. The sole entity to have claim to those lands was Turkey, and they relinquished them.

The UN and the League of Nations have both retified Jewish entitlements to the land. It's part of the international law mind you.

The British made it illegal for Jews to buy land in 90% of Palestine because this fact was recognised.

Again, more twisted "facts". The British chopped off 78% of Palestine when they created it and gave it to the Hashemite King as a gratitude to his affair with Mr Lawrance of Arabia in WW1. He should have had all of the Arabian peninsula but he was then kicked out by the Saudi clan.

That was their original intent - 78% of the land will go to the Arabs, and 22% will be for the Jews.

However, after a series of religious anti-Semitic pogrom, instigated by the Palestinian leader Haj Amin Al-Husseini (father of Palestinian nationalism and a Nazi general), during the 1920s and 1930s, the British issued an Arab-appeasing set of "White Papers" harshly limiting Jewish immigration and settlement. Every time the Arabs killed Jews, the British gave more and more onto the demands of the Arabs.

Which is part of what led to their persecution in Germany up to and during WW2.

Wow. Almost, just almost, Holocaust denial. Nazi anti-Semitism had nothing to do with Zionism nor Jewish help to the British in WW1, as many, many officers in the German army were Jewish. Don't try to blame Zionism for the Holocaust as well.

Also, they looked at many places for a home, but Zionism and Zionist leaders had already been pushing for the Holy Land for decades.

Jews have been living there for ages!

Also, I know this time you didn't say it, but let's make it clear - Zionism was a secular movement, dominated largely by socialists, and was opposed harshly by ultra-religious Jews (the very fact that they revived hebrew as a spoken language is for many religious Jews seen as blasphemy).

[Saru]

If your settlements are a part of Israel, and you sure act like they are, then you are an apartheid State, and quite a horrid one.

Get your goons and dozers, your fences and settlers out of there and respect some sovereignty already. You'd think that your neighbors would have cleaned up your Palestinian problem for you by now, eh? That's too bad.

Comments like this are not helping matters, making blatantly anti-Israeli comments when you are discussing a topic like this with someone who is from Israel is only going to lead to hostility, bickering and another closed thread.

Please keep your replies civil and respectful.

[Yamato]

Yamato and Ex, Ofcourse today there is a Palestinian nation. Don't twist my words - I've never there aren't. I specifically said that denying this today is stupid.

I was, however, criticizing and attacking your attempt to claim that this newly created nation in fact existed for centuries and that what they consider as Palestine today, wasn't the creation of British colonialism, but was in it's form their ancient country which was somehow belonged to them more than to the Jews.

That wasn't my attempt.

Of whose course is there a Palestinian nation? I don't think that history or governments are reasons to deny anyone their rights today, yesterday, or tomorrow. I can't step into my time machine and undo the wrongs of the past, so I'll insist that such wrongs are righted in the present, and prevented in the future.

[Yamato]

Comments like this are not helping matters, making blatantly anti-Israeli comments when you are discussing a topic like this with someone who is from Israel is only going to lead to hostility, bickering and another closed thread.

Please keep your replies civil and respectful.

Asking someone if their illegal settlements are a part of their own nation and concluding they're a reprehensible Apartheid state is against the rules of this forum? Why is being anti-Israel a ban-able offense?

[ExpandMyMind]

Yamato and Ex, Ofcourse today there is a Palestinian nation. Don't twist my words - I've never there aren't. I specifically said that denying this today is stupid.

I was, however, criticizing and attacking your attempt to claim that this newly created nation in fact existed for centuries and that what they consider as Palestine today, wasn't the creation of British colonialism, but was in it's form their ancient country which was somehow belonged to them more than to the Jews.

And the fact that Palestinian are treated that way by their brethren is repulsive, yet has nothing to do with the uniquness of the Palestinians, but more to the cynicism of the Arab states that have no problem using millions of thier own people as hostages in their conflict against Israel.

There is no real reason why these people shouldn't become Lebanese, Syrians, etc. Heck, they live in Lebanon or Syria more than they lived under British Mandate of Palestine. The only two countries in the region to give full citizenship to the Palestinians are Israel and Jordan.

1. I have been challenging your views that reflect the silly notion that, because they didn't have a 'country' before a certain point in time, somehow the Palestinians didn't have a right to the land. All the while you are trying to claim that somehow the immigrants of Israel did. You try to nullify Palestinian claim on the land by claiming there were no 'Palestinians'. You are completely incorrect in your views.

2. I have never claimed that the nation of Palestine had existed for centuries. What I know is that the people who lived there had lived there for centuries (and some, most even, for far longer). It is the people, not the way they identify themselves, that matter. You are applying the faulty logic that because a group of people had not become a nation in the eyes of the World, they are somehow relinquished of their human right to claim that land. This is nonsense. When they claimed their identity as a nation of people in Palestine does not have any reflection on whether or not the land is theirs to claim.

Your theory is defunct anyway, as they gained their national identity decades before Israelis gained theirs - 'Israelis' didn't even live there, and before the end result for Jews of WW2, Zionism would not have been considered by most Jews as a realistic aspiration. If the events concerning Jews in WW2 had not happened, there would have been no mass immigration to Palestine (this can be seen clearly when we consider the fact that 2/3 of the World's Jews do not reside in Israel), therefore one cannot try to claim that simply because Zionism existed before Palestinian Nationalism (which can be argued, as some form of Palestinian Nationalism existed during the Ottoman Empire), the mass immigration of the Europeans somehow had more legitimacy. It wasn't even adopted by most until after WW2.

Your entire premise is based on your faulty belief that to claim a land, a people need to be a country, when, in reality, to have a legitimate claim on a land, all a people has to do is to have lived there.

It all comes back to the lies of 'A land without a people for a people without a land'.

[Saru]

Asking someone if their illegal settlements are a part of their own nation and concluding they're a reprehensible Apartheid state is against the rules of this forum? Why is being anti-Israel a ban-able offense?

That depends on how you define anti-Israel.

If by anti-Israel you mean that you don't support Israel's position and policies then that's fine.

If by anti-Israel you mean that you expect to openly attack, criticise and defame Israel at every opportunity, to make inflammatory and derogatory remarks about the country in discussions or to bait and attack other members who happen to be from Israel, to promote an anti-Israeli agenda on the forums via your choice of comments, source links, videos and topics - obviously that is not fine.

[ExpandMyMind]

Rubbish. There was no Palestine. The sole entity to have claim to those lands was Turkey, and they relinquished them.

The UN and the League of Nations have both retified Jewish entitlements to the land. It's part of the international law mind you.

Again, more twisted "facts". The British chopped off 78% of Palestine when they created it and gave it to the Hashemite King as a gratitude to his affair with Mr Lawrance of Arabia in WW1. He should have had all of the Arabian peninsula but he was then kicked out by the Saudi clan.

That was their original intent - 78% of the land will go to the Arabs, and 22% will be for the Jews.

However, after a series of religious anti-Semitic pogrom, instigated by the Palestinian leader Haj Amin Al-Husseini (father of Palestinian nationalism and a Nazi general), during the 1920s and 1930s, the British issued an Arab-appeasing set of "White Papers" harshly limiting Jewish immigration and settlement. Every time the Arabs killed Jews, the British gave more and more onto the demands of the Arabs.

Wow. Almost, just almost, Holocaust denial. Nazi anti-Semitism had nothing to do with Zionism nor Jewish help to the British in WW1, as many, many officers in the German army were Jewish. Don't try to blame Zionism for the Holocaust as well.

Jews have been living there for ages!

Also, I know this time you didn't say it, but let's make it clear - Zionism was a secular movement, dominated largely by socialists, and was opposed harshly by ultra-religious Jews (the very fact that they revived hebrew as a spoken language is for many religious Jews seen as blasphemy).

I'll start from the bottom up.

1. Zionism is a religious movement. It was based on the absurd notion of prophesy. To try to deny this is simply silly. This is one of the reasons it gained so much support in Jewry. Ultra Orthodox Jews do oppose it, but then there are others who also support it. Look at the Israelis illegally populating the Occupied Territories. They are for the most part, heavily religious because they believe they have a religious claim to the land. Look at the Likud party and the entire reason for Occupying 'Judea' and 'Samaria'.

2. A minority of Palestinian Jews had been living there for ages. You are trying to claim that because a small group of people have lived there for a long time, their long removed brethren somehow have a claim to the land. This is astoundingly ridiculous. African Americans have no claim to any part of Africa, Australians and Americans have no claim to any part of Britain, Mexicans have no claim to Spain, etc, etc, etc - - and their 'people' are a majority in those lands, while Palestinian Jews were outnumbered by Palestinian Arabs by around 10-1. How on earth you can think that European Jews had a claim to Palestine is beyond me. It is so absurd, there are no words to properly describe this fallacy.

3. Holocaust denial? What on earth are you talking about? And I did not blame Zionism for the Holocaust. Again, whaaaat are you talking about? Zionism nearly prevented the Holocaust! You have strayed far, my friend.

You should read up on Jewish involvement in WW1. Haven't you heard of the planes dropping leaflet upon leaflet in Jewish areas of Germany, declaring that Jews were on the side of the allies? That's not even the point. Their influence and involvement in WW1 played a large part in bringing Germany down.

4. "Again, more twisted "facts". The British chopped off 78% of Palestine when they created it and gave it to the Hashemite King as a gratitude to his affair with Mr Lawrance of Arabia in WW1. He should have had all of the Arabian peninsula but he was then kicked out by the Saudi clan."

Wrong. If you had bothered to read the British documents I provided for you in the nonsensical 'Jordan is Palestine' thread, you would clearly have seen that in the letter drafted by the British, that the area West of the Jordan River was never a part of what was promised to them. Jordan is not Palestine. I can't believe you actually are trying to peddle this nonsense. Nice try though.

"That was their original intent - 78% of the land will go to the Arabs, and 22% will be for the Jews."

This is a straight up lie. No 'land' was 'intended'. Jews were never to be given a country at all! What are you talking about? They were offered a 'National Home', a place to reside, in another's land which the British at that time Occupied. The first that Jews were intended to be given land was after the years of violence due to Palestinian Nationalism and the realisation by the Palestinians that Zionism called for Jews to have all of the land. The document where it was first suggested that Jews were to have their own country was first suggested was the Peel Commission - and that was over 20 years after the Balfour Declaration.

5. "Rubbish. There was no Palestine. The sole entity to have claim to those lands was Turkey, and they relinquished them."

This is more of your warped theory that a people don't have a claim to a land they have lived on for centuries, and most even longer. It is impossible to reason with such, I'm sorry, idiotic theories. You do realise that you would be laughed out of any respectable university for forwarding this absolute nonsense.

I'll say one more time: the people who were BORN have HAVE LIVED on a land and have traceable history on said land are the ONLY ones with any sort of legitimate claim to the land. The majority of NEW Israel's population were recent immigrants with 2000 years of history NOT tied to Palestine. They had no legitimate claim.

Edited December 12, 2012 by ExpandMyMind

[Yamato]

That depends on how you define anti-Israel.

If by anti-Israel you mean that you expect to openly attack, criticise and defame Israel at every opportunity, to make inflammatory and derogatory remarks about the country in discussions or to bait and attack other members who happen to be from Israel, to promote an anti-Israeli agenda on the forums via your choice of comments, source links, videos and topics - obviously that is not fine.

* snip *

Edited December 12, 2012 by Saru
Better to discuss this in PMs.

[ExpandMyMind]

Best to have such discussions in private I'd think mate.

[Mr.United_Nations]

Yeah you don't want to post stuff like that on where everyone can see

[WHO U KIDDIN]

Now you are beginning to see the reality of the human condition. Until now you've been laboring under some illusion that we aren't all the same - that one group is somehow innocent. One thing I can assure you of, WHO is that I no longer get angry about this situation. What will be will be. I don't understand how anyone can look at the problem and think it's going to change or be made better by constantly demonizing one side or another though. The only logical outcome is that Israel, through might of arms will survive until a coalition comes against it. And before THAT happens there will need to be a calculation that either they will not use their nukes OR that for some reason those nukes don't matter so much. Just a thought.....Can you think of another example anywhere on earth anytime in history where one group of people have been so universally hated? I can't.

I’ve always known the reality of the human condition; I’m a New York Mets fan.

I have no illusions about either side in this feud, one thing I can agree with you about is that both sides are equally responsible for the bloodshed. But since we cannot go back in time and change history we must find another solution besides devastating war.

Palestinian and Israeli leaders of reason need to be given a chance to compromise and reach agreements that may bring a lasting peace. The groundwork has been put in place with Oslo/The Roadmap/Arab Peace Initiative. These proposals offer a good starting point we just need a rousing and fair finale that all can cheer.

Abbas is willing to lead the Palestinians to peace but for him to succeed against Meshal and Hamas, he needs an Israeli counterpart that is also willing but unfortunately Netanyahu is not the one. Netanyahu wants a Greater Israel and of course the Palestinians will not give up the West Bank to fulfill his wish.

For Israel to have peace they will need to recognize the two state solution based on 1967 borders. Anything that attempts to disable this outcome is unacceptable to not just the Palestinians but to the worldwide community as evident by not just the post of most people in these forums but by recent UN actions on the matter.

[Guest]

ExpandmyMind and Who U Kiddin have expressed my position better than I could myself - thanks.

It takes time and energy to present the evidence which refutes the zionist propaganda and most of the time I don't have enough of either.

Br Cornelius

[ExpandMyMind]

It takes time and energy to present the evidence which refutes the zionist propaganda and most of the time I don't have enough of either.

Br Cornelius

Me neither. It's seriously cutting into my study time.

[+and-then]

I’ve always known the reality of the human condition; I’m a New York Mets fan.

I have no illusions about either side in this feud, one thing I can agree with you about is that both sides are equally responsible for the bloodshed. But since we cannot go back in time and change history we must find another solution besides devastating war.

Palestinian and Israeli leaders of reason need to be given a chance to compromise and reach agreements that may bring a lasting peace. The groundwork has been put in place with Oslo/The Roadmap/Arab Peace Initiative. These proposals offer a good starting point we just need a rousing and fair finale that all can cheer.

Abbas is willing to lead the Palestinians to peace but for him to succeed against Meshal and Hamas, he needs an Israeli counterpart that is also willing but unfortunately Netanyahu is not the one. Netanyahu wants a Greater Israel and of course the Palestinians will not give up the West Bank to fulfill his wish.

For Israel to have peace they will need to recognize the two state solution based on 1967 borders. Anything that attempts to disable this outcome is unacceptable to not just the Palestinians but to the worldwide community as evident by not just the post of most people in these forums but by recent UN actions on the matter.

A "final" peace initiative will probably be based on '67 but it will also have to clearly end the talk of right of return. That is a red line for Israel for reasons I've mentioned many times. Israel will be forced to give up the idea of Jerusalem as it's "undivided" capital. Jerusalem will probably have to become an OPEN city that is managed by the UN. Agreeing to the lines prior to '67 will leave Israel 9 miles wide at it's narrowest. If an IDF presence is disallowed in the Jordan Valley then the IDF would have to be on constant alert for an attack that could cut the country in two. I would love to see Netanyahu call Abbas, Meshaal and Haniya out and agree to these terms. It would infuriate Bibi's constituency for a while and it would shut up his detractors in the world (for a while) but ultimately it would place the onus on the Palestinians to change their stance OR start attacking again. IF they started attacking after being given everything they've asked for then it becomes rather obvious what the end game is here.

[Black Red Devil]

A "final" peace initiative will probably be based on '67 but it will also have to clearly end the talk of right of return. That is a red line for Israel for reasons I've mentioned many times. Israel will be forced to give up the idea of Jerusalem as it's "undivided" capital. Jerusalem will probably have to become an OPEN city that is managed by the UN. Agreeing to the lines prior to '67 will leave Israel 9 miles wide at it's narrowest. If an IDF presence is disallowed in the Jordan Valley then the IDF would have to be on constant alert for an attack that could cut the country in two. I would love to see Netanyahu call Abbas, Meshaal and Haniya out and agree to these terms. It would infuriate Bibi's constituency for a while and it would shut up his detractors in the world (for a while) but ultimately it would place the onus on the Palestinians to change their stance OR start attacking again. IF they started attacking after being given everything they've asked for then it becomes rather obvious what the end game is here.

[Yamato]

When a land is completely unable to govern itself how is it going to prevent attacks? Bombing police stations is no way to encourage a community to enforce its laws. Bombing schools and killing parents and tearing apart families with all kinds of moral and human tragedies on a daily basis is no way to win the hearts and minds and the trust of a people. That kind of policy will guarantee the opposite.

Looking at the disparity of power here, Israel fearing an attack from Palestine is like the USSR fearing an attack from Luxembourg. Still, the 1967 borders are "indefensible" according to the Israeli regime so if that's what's being presented as a solution, the Israeli bureaucrats need to be convinced first or it's never gonna happen.

1947 borders, a cosmopolitan Jerusalem under international rule, full right of return to Palestine for all Palestinians, and a massive influx of international peacekeepers into Israel and Palestine both to keep the peace there for the next 100 years. Hamas will need to throw out its charter. Palestinian and Israeli bureaucrats will need to be jointly held accountable for attacks by their citizens on people of the other country when the international peacekeepers let something slip. Israel can continue to be the Jewish Homeland however its bureaucrats want to define that idea but only do so within its own borders. Both sides will get the peace and security, and more importantly civil liberties and human rights that they deserve.

[Codeblind]

My understanding of the conflict is that Zionism isn't interested in anything other than acquiring all of the land, as set out in the Torah under a fundamentalist perspective. The sooner that's accepted as fact the better, all this hope in a two state solution is waffle...the Jews have already made up their minds that the only solution is to wipe the Arabs on the map and completely destroy Gaza...you would think at least include a compromise as a possible solution, but no its a full on genocide and wholesale extermination of the Palestinian Arabs.

[Erikl]

It takes time and energy to present the evidence which refutes the zionist propaganda and most of the time I don't have enough of either.

You have know idea how much it saddens me and offends me to see "Zionism" being refered to as some of the evil "-isms" of the 20th century. I don't have much time to reply to all of the new posts here right now as I have a lot of work, but I'll just reply to the last bits.

My understanding of the conflict is that Zionism isn't interested in anything other than acquiring all of the land

You misunderstand the conflict. Israelis have a consensus that a Palestinian state should exist along side Israel. It is taught to our children in Israeli official education textbooks.

The Palestinian propaganda machine here is working over time to make you believe this is the case, while in the mean time, the Palestinian Authority is having some troubles keeping it's true agenda, as can been seen in the renewed Fatah emblem for it's 48th years birthday:

As you can see, the entire area that includes both Israel and the West Bank and Gaza is being included into their form of "Palestine".

Btw, 2012 - 48 = 1964, three years before the Six Days War when Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza, and that allegedly started the conflict. Fatah and the PLO were created to liberate all of what they deem as Palestine, and they work to that end till this day.

The Palestinian propagnda machine and it's agents, attempt to deciet and trick us all that but in fact, if you examine the PLO's Ten Point Program from 1974, you can see it has an outstanding success:

The plan called for the establishment of a national authority "over every part of Palestinian territory that is liberated" with the aim of "completing the liberation of all Palestinian territory". The program implied that the liberation of Palestine may be partial (at least, at some stage), and though it emphasized armed struggle, it did not exclude other means. This allowed the PLO to engage in diplomatic channels, and provided validation for future compromises made by the Palestinian leadership.

The destruction of Israel and the creation of a Palestine state instead of Israel, is a Palestinian consensus. This is why they will never agree to relinquish flooding Israel with millions of refugees. This is why they'll never agree to any Jew living in their Palestine. This is why they'll never recognize Israel as the national home for the Jews. The only difference between the PLO and Hamas, is that the PLO has mastered the arts of diplomatic deciets, and is thus sneakier and as evident in this forum by some members, has far more supporters. Hamas is more outright and has no problem shouting it's master plan of eridicating Israel at any chance it can.

This is the true reason why the agents of Palestinian propaganda here work so hard to taint the entire creation of Israel, from Zionism to this day, as an historical sin. Because they know all too well that the true goal isn't some small piece of land for some poor, well-intentioned national movement. It's true goal is the eridacitation of Israel. And any true Palestinian supporter deep in his heart would actually want to see this through, no matter what they try to portray to the world.

*sits and wait for the usual "ooh Zionist propaganda" excuse blah blah*

as set out in the Torah under a fundamentalist perspective

Wrong. Zionism was a secular movement. Was dominated by socialists. The Kibbutz, Labour party, etc., - were all socialist in nature. Until 1977, all of the coalition and all of the governments of Israel were lead by the Labour party and by left-leaning parties.

Even today, only third of the settlers are religious Zionists. The rest are secular Israelis. And a third are ultra-orthodox anti-Zionist Chasidic Jews who moved there for financial reasons (it's cheap and still close to Israel's centre).

[+and-then]

When a land is completely unable to govern itself how is it going to prevent attacks? Bombing police stations is no way to encourage a community to enforce its laws. Bombing schools and killing parents and tearing apart families with all kinds of moral and human tragedies on a daily basis is no way to win the hearts and minds and the trust of a people. That kind of policy will guarantee the opposite.

Looking at the disparity of power here, Israel fearing an attack from Palestine is like the USSR fearing an attack from Luxembourg. Still, the 1967 borders are "indefensible" according to the Israeli regime so if that's what's being presented as a solution, the Israeli bureaucrats need to be convinced first or it's never gonna happen.

1947 borders, a cosmopolitan Jerusalem under international rule, full right of return to Palestine for all Palestinians, and a massive influx of international peacekeepers into Israel and Palestine both to keep the peace there for the next 100 years. Hamas will need to throw out its charter. Palestinian and Israeli bureaucrats will need to be jointly held accountable for attacks by their citizens on people of the other country when the international peacekeepers let something slip. Israel can continue to be the Jewish Homeland however its bureaucrats want to define that idea but only do so within its own borders. Both sides will get the peace and security, and more importantly civil liberties and human rights that they deserve.

As soon as right of return is implemented there would no longer be any reason for peacekeepers. IF Israelis agree to that, it means they have given up and surrendered their land to their enemies. They will have decided to live as second class citizens in their ancient homeland. Israel would no longer be a problem for the world - it would just be the 23rd Arab State.

[Erikl]

and then, it some times astonishing to see how the agents of Palestinian propaganda simply ignore hard questions that basically refute their entire world view. They'll just brush it all under "zionist propaganda" or something of the sort.

Let's assume that they truly believe the PA want peace and that Israel is the wrong here. Here are three paradoxes that they cannot solve:

1- How come the PA and virtually all Palestinians insist on the right of return of millions of third and fourth generation "refugees" (Palestinians being the only case of non-naturalized refugees for some reason) into Israel, not a Palestinian state?

2- How come Jews shouldn't be allowed to live in the West Bank under Palestinian rule? why insisting on Jew-clean Palestinian state? Jews make no demographic threats as their population growth is slower than Palestinians. And Israel is a home to more than 1.5 million Israeli Palestinians. Why the opposite, or the a Jewish minority in a Palestinian state, can't happen?

3- Why won't they accept UN Resolution 181(II) for partition of the land to two states - Arab and Jewish? As long as they do not accept Israel as a Jewish state (in the same way Norway is a Norwegian state or Italy is an Italian state), coupled with their on going persistence on Israel accepting some 4 million "refugees" as citizens, it's quite obvious what's their goal here. You don't have to be a braniac to figure it out.

All of these simple, yet dramatic questions, cannot be answered simply because any rational, sane person understands that a peace under these conditions is no peace, just a way to upgrade Palestinian strategic position to such a way as they could destroy Israel without it being able to put up a fight.

[+and-then]

and then, it some times astonishing to see how the agents of Palestinian propaganda simply ignore hard questions that basically refute their entire world view. They'll just brush it all under "zionist propaganda" or something of the sort.

Let's assume that they truly believe the PA want peace and that Israel is the wrong here. Here are three paradoxes that they cannot solve:

1- How come the PA and virtually all Palestinians insist on the right of return of millions of third and fourth generation "refugees" (Palestinians being the only case of non-naturalized refugees for some reason) into Israel, not a Palestinian state?

2- How come Jews shouldn't be allowed to live in the West Bank under Palestinian rule? why insisting on Jew-clean Palestinian state? Jews make no demographic threats as their population growth is slower than Palestinians. And Israel is a home to more than 1.5 million Israeli Palestinians. Why the opposite, or the a Jewish minority in a Palestinian state, can't happen?

3- Why won't they accept UN Resolution 181(II) for partition of the land to two states - Arab and Jewish? As long as they do not accept Israel as a Jewish state (in the same way Norway is a Norwegian state or Italy is an Italian state), coupled with their on going persistence on Israel accepting some 4 million "refugees" as citizens, it's quite obvious what's their goal here. You don't have to be a braniac to figure it out.

All of these simple, yet dramatic questions, cannot be answered simply because any rational, sane person understands that a peace under these conditions is no peace, just a way to upgrade Palestinian strategic position to such a way as they could destroy Israel without it being able to put up a fight.

I think it all stems from a view that Israel never had - never will have legitimacy in the eyes of the world. But it's rare for anyone who debates this to be honest about it. They just keep throwing up excuses that eventually get back to right of return and indefensible borders. I think it's a way to rationalize the destruction of the State without having to advocate for it publicly. I read yesterday of something that really made me sad and kind of afraid at the same time. Jews in Norway being warned not to wear the kippah or Magen David in public. AND the Norwegian government being silent on the issue. But this time it will be different than the '30s. The whole world will have to declare itself if this crime is to be attempted again.

[Yamato]

As soon as right of return is implemented there would no longer be any reason for peacekeepers. IF Israelis agree to that, it means they have given up and surrendered their land to their enemies. They will have decided to live as second class citizens in their ancient homeland. Israel would no longer be a problem for the world - it would just be the 23rd Arab State.

2nd class to whom? What does ancient have to do with it? How would a Jewish State be Arab?