Is a Two-State Solution Still Possible?

[Kirran]

It's the arabs doing the occupying.

Of where?

 

[CMike]

It's absurd to call that a war, it's an occupation with some resistance.

Fair enough, but groups like the Kahanists certainly worsen the situation, as does the entire concept of ethnic nationalism.

It's the arabs doing the occupying.

I have plenty of respect for your in-depth knowledge, and direct experience of this situation. But I am firmly of the opinion that many of the actions of the Israeli government are actively preventing the peace process. As well as having several friends of Palestinian origin, my mother has spent years working on justice development programs in the West Bank and in Gaza, and so I get some perspective from her. Also, I read about stuff.

There is no peace process. The arab side doesn't want to make peace.

It doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist.

 

[Kirran]

It's the arabs doing the occupying.

Of where?

 

[CMike]

Of where?

Judea and Samaria.

 

[CMike]

How do you justify the continued building of illegal settlements?

This is their own home. They can build wherever they want within their own home.

They are not illegal and they are not settlements.

 

[Kirran]

There is no peace process. The arab side doesn't want to make peace.

It doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist.

The Palestinians aren't a monolithic entity.

Judea and Samaria.

The Palestinians did not arrive as a conquering force who kicked Israelis out of their homes.

 

[Kirran]

This is their own home. They can build wherever they want within their own home.

They are not illegal and they are not settlements.

No, they decided it was theirs and took it.

It's against international law, making it illegal, and they're collections of dwellings, make them settlements.

 

[CMike]

Damn you Hamas. Their rockets makes us built illegal houses, steal lands, kill thousands of people each time war breaks, violate all international laws.

Damn you Hamas.

Israel completely pulling out of Gaza 9 years ago has led to Hamas firing over 10,000 rockets into Israel's populated cities, and using their own civilians as human shields.

It's the arab governments that constantly and consistently have broken international law.

 

[CMike]

The Palestinians aren't a monolithic entity.

It doesn't matter. Their governments wants to kill all the Jews in Israel.

The Palestinians did not arrive as a conquering force who kicked Israelis out of their homes.

They tried. These arabs are either Jordanian or Egyptian. Those are their home countries. They should go home.

 

[Kirran]

It doesn't matter. Their governments wants to kill all the Jews in Israel.

That's hardly some unilateral policy. Hamas does not represent all Palestinian people.

They tried. These arabs are either Jordanian or Egyptian. Those are their home countries. They should go home.

They did not arrive from those countries, and so are not from there. They consider themselves Palestinian, and so are Palestinian, and what's more have lived in the area they live in now for generation upon countless generation, and so leaving it would in no way constitute going home.

 

[CMike]

No, they decided it was theirs and took it.

Apparently you are unaware of the circumstances.

In 1967 Jordan as well as other arab countries invaded Israel for the purpose of destroying the country. They failed. Jordan lost the West Bank. Egypt lost the Gaza strip.

Since they have made their intentions clear, giving away this land now makes Israel indefensible. Giving away the West Bank would make Israel 9 miles wide, and not defensible in today's climate.

They lost the territory. Next time be careful what country you wish to invade and destroy. The Jordanian settlers in the West Bank and in half of Israel's capital can return to Jordan, or try to be peaceful residents in Israel.

They are not illegal and they are not settlements.

It's against international law, making it illegal, and they're collections of dwellings, make them settlements.

It's not against international law.

The UN is a vile organization.

Let's me ask you if Jordan and Egypt succeeded in destroying Israel in 1948 and 1967 would they give Israel back it's land despite that they are far more massive in area than Israel is?

 

[Kirran]

Apparently you are unaware of the circumstances.

In 1967 Jordan as well as other arab countries invaded Israel for the purpose of destroying the country. They failed. Jordan lost the West Bank. Egypt lost the Gaza strip.

Since they have made their intentions clear, giving away this land now makes Israel indefensible. Giving away the West Bank would make Israel 9 miles wide, and not defensible in today's climate.

They lost the territory. Next time be careful what country you wish to invade and destroy. The Jordanian settlers in the West Bank and in half of Israel's capital can return to Jordan, or try to be peaceful residents in Israel.

They are not illegal and they are not settlements.

I am aware of this, and in what way does it make the Palestinians of the West Bank settlers?

It's not against international law.

The UN is a vile organization.

Let's me ask you if Jordan and Egypt succeeded in destroying Israel in 1948 and 1967 would they give Israel back it's land despite that they are far more massive in area than Israel is?

It is against international law, it's just not international law you approve of.

No, probably not. And I'd be against such actions very strongly.

 

[CMike]

Much the same way the Israeli settlers can go back to Germany and Russia and Ethiopia.

i.e. they can't, because it's ridiculous.

Actually, that's less ridiculous, and still very ridiculous.

What Israeli settlers?

However, let's work with your analogy.

If a group of Jews decided they wanted their own state within Russia and Ethopia, Russia and Ethopia would wipe them out.

 

[CMike]

It is against international law, it's just not international law you approve of.

No, probably not. And I'd be against such actions very strongly.

Okay cite the law?

 

[CMike]

They did not arrive from those countries, and so are not from there. They consider themselves Palestinian, and so are Palestinian, and what's more have lived in the area they live in now for generation upon countless generation, and so leaving it would in no way constitute going home.

How come they didn't consider themselves "palestinian" when they were previously under Jordanian or Egyptian control?

Also, there never was an independent muslim palestinian state in that state...ever. Whereas this is now the third Jewish state in that area.

They can either realize they are living in a different country and be peaceful residents or move back to their homelands.

 

[Kirran]

What Israeli settlers.

However, let's work if your analogy.

If a group of Jews decided they wanted their own state within Russia and Ethopia, Russia and Ethopia would wipe them out.

Israelis in Israel are just as much settlers as Palestinians in Palestine. That is to say, not.

I didn't say anything about their own state

Okay cite the law?

• • Roberts, Adam. "Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967". The American Journal of International Law (American Society of International Law) 84 (1): 85–86.doi:10.2307/2203016. The international community has taken a critical view of both deportations and settlements as being contrary to international law. General Assembly resolutions have condemned the deportations since 1969, and have done so by overwhelming majorities in recent years. Likewise, they have consistently deplored the establishment of settlements, and have done so by overwhelming majorities throughout the period (since the end of 1976) of the rapid expansion in their numbers. The Security Council has also been critical of deportations and settlements; and other bodies have viewed them as an obstacle to peace, and illegal under international law.
  • Pertile, Marco (2005). "'Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory': A Missed Opportunity for International Humanitarian Law?". In Conforti, Benedetto; Bravo, Luigi. The Italian Yearbook of International Law 14. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 141. ISBN 978-90-04-15027-0. the establishment of the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory has been considered illegal by the international community and by the majority of legal scholars.
  • Barak-Erez, Daphne (2006). "Israel: The security barrier—between international law, constitutional law, and domestic judicial review". International Journal of Constitutional Law (Oxford University Press) 4 (3): 548. doi:10.1093/icon/mol021. The real controversy hovering over all the litigation on the security barrier concerns the fate of the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. Since 1967, Israel has allowed and even encouraged its citizens to live in the new settlements established in the territories, motivated by religious and national sentiments attached to the history of the Jewish nation in the land of Israel. This policy has also been justified in terms of security interests, taking into consideration the dangerous geographic circumstances of Israel before 1967 (where Israeli areas on the Mediterranean coast were potentially threatened by Jordanian control of the West Bank ridge). The international community, for its part, has viewed this policy as patently illegal, based on the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention that prohibit moving populations to or from territories under occupation.
  • Drew, Catriona (1997). "Self-determination and population transfer". In Bowen, Stephen. Human rights, self-determination and political change in the occupied Palestinian Hkterritories. International studies in human rights 52. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. pp. 151–152. ISBN 978-90-411-0502-8.It can thus clearly be concluded that the transfer of Israeli settlers into the occupied territories violates not only the laws of belligerent occupation but the Palestinian right of self-determination under international law. The question remains, however, whether this is of any practical value. In other words, given the view of the international community that the Israeli settlements are illegal under the law if belligerent occupation...
  • International Labour Organization (2005). "The situation of workers of the occupied Arab territories". p. 14. The international community considers Israeli settlements within the occupied territories illegal and in breach of, inter alia, United Nations Security Council resolution 465 of 1 March 1980 calling on Israel "to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem".
  • Civilian and military presence as strategies of territorial control: The Arab-Israel conflict, David Newman, Political Geography Quarterly Volume 8, Issue 3, July 1989, Pages 215–227

How come they didn't consider themselves "palestinian" when they were previously under Jordanian or Egyptian control?

How come Jews living in Palestine before Zionism didn't consider themselves Israelis? Identities change.

Also, there never was an independent muslim palestinian state in that state...ever. Whereas this is now the third Jewish state in that area.

They can either realize they are living in a different country and be peaceful residents or move back to their homelands.

They are from the area they live in. What's not to understand?

Now, I'm not ignoring any replies you make to this, I'm off to bed. I'll reply tomorrow. Thankyou for the discussion, I find it very stimulating.

 

[CMike]

Here is a good analysis.

 

[CMike]

This shows the legal legitimacy of Israel.

 

[CMike]

Israelis in Israel are just as much settlers as Palestinians in Palestine. That is to say, not.

I didn't say anything about their own state

• • Roberts, Adam. "Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967". The American Journal of International Law (American Society of International Law) 84 (1): 85–86.doi:10.2307/2203016. The international community has taken a critical view of both deportations and settlements as being contrary to international law. General Assembly resolutions have condemned the deportations since 1969, and have done so by overwhelming majorities in recent years. Likewise, they have consistently deplored the establishment of settlements, and have done so by overwhelming majorities throughout the period (since the end of 1976) of the rapid expansion in their numbers. The Security Council has also been critical of deportations and settlements; and other bodies have viewed them as an obstacle to peace, and illegal under international law.
  • Pertile, Marco (2005). "'Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory': A Missed Opportunity for International Humanitarian Law?". In Conforti, Benedetto; Bravo, Luigi. The Italian Yearbook of International Law 14. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 141. ISBN 978-90-04-15027-0. the establishment of the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory has been considered illegal by the international community and by the majority of legal scholars.
  • Barak-Erez, Daphne (2006). "Israel: The security barrier—between international law, constitutional law, and domestic judicial review". International Journal of Constitutional Law (Oxford University Press) 4 (3): 548. doi:10.1093/icon/mol021. The real controversy hovering over all the litigation on the security barrier concerns the fate of the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. Since 1967, Israel has allowed and even encouraged its citizens to live in the new settlements established in the territories, motivated by religious and national sentiments attached to the history of the Jewish nation in the land of Israel. This policy has also been justified in terms of security interests, taking into consideration the dangerous geographic circumstances of Israel before 1967 (where Israeli areas on the Mediterranean coast were potentially threatened by Jordanian control of the West Bank ridge). The international community, for its part, has viewed this policy as patently illegal, based on the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention that prohibit moving populations to or from territories under occupation.
  • Drew, Catriona (1997). "Self-determination and population transfer". In Bowen, Stephen. Human rights, self-determination and political change in the occupied Palestinian Hkterritories. International studies in human rights 52. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. pp. 151–152. ISBN 978-90-411-0502-8.It can thus clearly be concluded that the transfer of Israeli settlers into the occupied territories violates not only the laws of belligerent occupation but the Palestinian right of self-determination under international law. The question remains, however, whether this is of any practical value. In other words, given the view of the international community that the Israeli settlements are illegal under the law if belligerent occupation...
  • International Labour Organization (2005). "The situation of workers of the occupied Arab territories". p. 14. The international community considers Israeli settlements within the occupied territories illegal and in breach of, inter alia, United Nations Security Council resolution 465 of 1 March 1980 calling on Israel "to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem".
  • Civilian and military presence as strategies of territorial control: The Arab-Israel conflict, David Newman, Political Geography Quarterly Volume 8, Issue 3, July 1989, Pages 215–227

How come Jews living in Palestine before Zionism didn't consider themselves Israelis? Identities change.



They are from the area they live in. What's not to understand?

Now, I'm not ignoring any replies you make to this, I'm off to bed. I'll reply tomorrow. Thankyou for the discussion, I find it very stimulating.

Once again please cite the law?

Are you able to do this?

 

[CMike]

It's a fair question. You said it violates international law. So please cite the specific international law it violates?

 

[CMike]

I'l be even more specific.

Please cite the international law that states that if your country is being invaded by a hostile neighboring country, and that country loses land during that invasion, that the people in that land now have a legal right to declare their own country within your country?

And also that your country doesn't have a legal right to build homes there?

Thank you.

 

[CMike]

Nite nite