The two-state solution: Revisiting the Clinton Compromise Parameters and the Olmert Plan.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 15, 2012 5:46 AM GMT
    Reposting as some of the usual suspects sought to hijack and vandalize the discussion rather than... discuss it.

    Original discussion:
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2271313

    On Dec 09, 2011 11:48 PM (EST), pouncer posted this map:
    page002.png

    This is progress.

    1. Previously he misrepresented not just the Barak Plan, but also the Clinton parameters.
    So he could reject and argue against them.
    To rationalize and justify their rejection by Arafat (while pretending Arafat accepted them).
    How can someone spend hours seeking (and filtering) data, posting selective snippets, and get things so wrong?

    2. Specifically, note the red dots which are Jewish villages that would "be evacuated".
    Previously pouncer argued they would remain, with "access roads" disecting the Arab state-to-be.

    3. How many "cantons" are there above? None! It is one contiguous area.
    (Matching the Ross map I posted years ago.)
    Do you see why Mally & Agha don't make the slogan/soundbite "canton" argument and sleazy false comparisons to SA?
    Do you see why Ross and Clinton explicitly reject this?


    pouncer> The two-state settlement is this (the Palestinian plan):

    4. Now, finally, he's giving us a counter-offer?

    5. Yet the only difference is the size of the "fingers".
    In total, a difference of a mere 30 square miles.
    (For those challenged by math, that's a 3 x 10 mile strip.)

    6. At a cost of creating a sixth of a million Jewish refugees.

    Which is the lesser evil?
    Israel retaining a net 30 square miles of land (on which few Arabs reside)?
    Or forcing an extra 111,000 Jews out of their homes? (Above the 56,000 in Israel's proposal.)
    No surprise that pouncer, always seeking to malign and punish Jews, chooses the latter.

    7. All this for the faux "principle" of making land exchanges 1-to-1, exactly even.
    As if that's that important?
    The problem is that Arabs living on the Israeli side of the 1949 Armistice line don't want their villages ceded to a PA state.
    They (despite all the anti-Israeli propaganda) prefer to live in - their homes & villages to stay in - allegedly "apartheid" Israel.

    Previously (in the Yalla, Peace! topic), pouncer fell silent when asked:
    "What is more important?
    Respecting the wishes of these Arab villagers - who don't want their land ceded to Palestine-to-be
    or Making land swaps 1-to-1?"

    Punish the Jews or let the Arabs live - in Israel - in peace?
    Tough question for someone whose raison d'etre is anti-Jewish animus.

    8. 4 months later pouncer figured it out:
    It is more important to respect the wishes of these Arab villagers, thus the 1-to-1 land ratio must be preserved... by uprooting 167,000 Jews!

    9. Hey, why not invent a 1-to-1 "principle" about uprooting people, too?
    If 167,000 Jews are to be uprooted, why not uproot 167,000 Arabs from Israel?
    (For those too dim to understand, I'm not advocating this. Just showing how ridiculous the faux 1-to-1 "principle" is.)


    10. From pouncer's source, we see this stated by the PA negotiators - in 2008:
    Saeb [Erakat]: We will examine the matter. We have lots of internal complications.
    ...What matters is that we have begun to participate and cooperate.

    This startling admission in 2008!
    Previously the official PA position was our way or the highway, no negotiation, everything or nothing.

    11. Now consider Israel's reponse:
    [Tzipi] Livni: Perhaps the next thing we will do, after knowing the position of each of us, is to have the experts sit together and discuss the gaps and differences between the two maps.

    12. Unfortunately the PA pulled out of the negotiations before that could happen.
    As documented in the original forum topic (back in 2008!), they regressed to the same ol' same old:
    Abbas's spokesman said. "The Palestinian side will only accept a Palestinian state with territorial continuity, with holy Jerusalem as its capital, without settlements, and on the June 4, 1967 boundaries." He called the Israeli proposal a "waste of time."

    Looks like the PA leadership was wasting its own negotiators' time.
    Just as they had wasted the years from 2000-2008.
    Just as they wasted 2008-2011.
    Just as they continue to waste time (and lives!) now into 2012.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 15, 2012 5:47 AM GMT
    Let me add another thing from the original topic.
    This coming from sxydrkhair's source (not quoted selectively):

    President Clinton> Arafat turned down the deal I put together that Barak accepted

    President Clinton himself - sxydrkhair's source! - proved both pouncer's and tokugawa's anti-Israel claims are wrong!
    (Which I'm sure wasn't much of a surprise to anyone.)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 15, 2012 5:55 AM GMT
    One thing the usual suspects rely upon is never to discuss a topic in the thread dedicated to it. Probably because what they pitch has already been disproven and discredited.

    Recall, the map in the OP was originally posted by pouncer. How much credibility could he retain (assuming he even has any remaining at all) if he came here and argued against it?

    So on and on they plod - elsewhere. For example, back in July in another topic:

    IanCT saidIsrael has three options.

    1. Two state solution within its 1967 borders, no land swap. East Jerusalem belongs to Palestine.

    2. One state solution - secular state.

    3. Don't agree above? Get out of the historical Palestine! Go back home.

    Note: the ianct account was since deleted for repeatedly calling an African American a "n**ga".
    The replacement account is GalileePal.

    What an odd set of dictates - or ransom demands?
    If Israel doesn't agree, his "solution" is terrorism forever?

    By the way, just what is "historical Palestine" - other than the Latin/European name for Eretz Yisrael?
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/349491
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 15, 2012 5:59 AM GMT
    Earlier this month: How odd that in my topic about the so-called "one-state 'solution'" AyaTrollah pouncer wishes to discuss the two-state solution.
    (Why can't these trolls ever discuss a topic in its place? Is it because the lies they regurgitate were already refuted?)

    ATp> Olmert, who never envisaged more than blatantly unequal Israeli landswaps

    http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/diplomania/palestinian-president-mahmoud-abbas-congratulates-olmert-on-acquittals-1.450277
    Olmert suggested that Israel pull out of 94 percent of the West Bank, compensating the Palestinians with land in place of the remaining 6 percent.


    ATp> who was unwilling to commit any further suggestions in writing,

    From the link above:
    Abbas didn't respond to Olmert's proposal, instead he presented him in September 2008 with a document listing clarifications. In a May 2009 interview to the Washington Post, Abbas said that despite the understandings he reached with Olmert, "The differences were still great." In an interview to Channel 2 that aired several days ago Abbas denied this, claiming that he and Olmert actually did reach many understandings.

    Rice wrote in her memoirs that she pressed then President George W. Bush to pressure Olmert and Abbas to put what they agreed on to writing in order to solidify the agreement further. But Abbas refused to do so


    ATp> keeping over 60% of the settlers in Israel as the PA had offered.

    I think the above is being twisted despite meaning the opposite, that 63% of these Jews would be uprooted and kicked out of their homes.

    It's not surprising that Olmert would shy away from this given that under his proposal - with equitable land swaps - only 12% of Jews would be expelled from their homes.


    ATp> the only reasonable two-state solution ever offered

    LOL. There's that infamous madrasa logic.
    He has yet to show why other proposals (including Clinton's or Olmert's) weren't "reasonable".


    ATp> was flatly rejected

    We've already seen above that this is false.
    It was Abbas who "flatly rejected" Olmert's offer and broke off negotiations:

    http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/haaretz-exclusive-olmert-s-plan-for-peace-with-the-palestinians-1.1970
    Olmert presented his map to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in September of last year [2008]. Abbas did not respond, and negotiations ended. In an interview with Haaretz on Tuesday, Abbas said Olmert had presented several drafts of his map.


    PA rejects Olmert's offer to withdraw from 93% of West Bank
    http://www.haaretz.com/news/pa-rejects-olmert-s-offer-to-withdraw-from-93-of-west-bank-1.251578
    He [Abbas] called the Israeli proposal a "waste of time."

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 15, 2012 6:12 AM GMT
    Unable to address the above, now (a mere 2 weeks later) AyaTrollah pouncer is back at it.

    W4> Under the Olmert plan, land swaps would have meant nearly no loss of territory.
    GP would rather fight over 10 square miles than compromise and have a peace dividend?


    ATp> The "Olmert plans", if they can be glorified as such, consisted of two offers to the PA. The first proposal was that Israel annex 9.2% of Palestinian land in exchange for Israeli territory equivalent to 5% of the West Bank. In other words, an unequal landswap. The second proposal (actually an informal offer to Mahmoud Abbas) was for Israel to annex 8.7% of Palestinian land in exchange for Israeli territory equivalent to 5.5% of the West Bank. In other words, an unequal landswap.

    He's already plagiarizing, again?!
    Quoting large paragraphs - without attribution - as if they are his own?

    There's that infamous flawed methodology. Beyond the plagiarism-for-the-cause. Aimed not at finding out the right answer, but the most "useful" one (as in useful idiot). Not using the best data available, but cherry picking data that fits the desired "model".

    http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/haaretz-exclusive-olmert-s-plan-for-peace-with-the-palestinians-1.1970
    Olmert wanted to annex 6.3 percent of the West Bank to Israel, areas that are home to 75 percent of the Jewish population of the territories. His proposal would have also involved evacuation of dozens of settlements.... Olmert proposed the transfer of territory to the Palestinians equivalent to 5.8 percent of the area of the West Bank as well as a safe-passage route from Hebron to the Gaza Strip

    That 0.5% delta is about 11 square miles (I originally said 10). Even if we accept AyaTrollah pouncer's unattributed source's figures, we're still talking about less than a 7x7 mile area. An area primarily inhabited by Jews.

    And he's still campaigning against this peace plan:

    ATp> I haven't heard GP as of yet reject the "Olmert plan", though he should.

    Our own private madrasa boy isn't seeking peace but to punish the Jewish nation/people. To evict as many as possible. To destroy Israel (as we know it) via "peace" since they lack the power to do so by violence, terrorism and war.

    After all, this racist loser is on record saying that the Jewish people having self-determination in even one state "is one too many".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 15, 2012 6:32 PM GMT
    Abbas: Palestinians, Israel were two months away from inking peace deal

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/abbas-palestinians-israel-were-two-months-away-from-inking-peace-deal.premium-1.469936

    First we see - from a primary Palestinian Arab source - that contrary to the lies of the anti-Israel naysayers:
    We discussed the borders, the exchange of territories and traded maps. We were close and reached many understandings. We agreed on the subject of security arrangements together with [U.S.] President [George] Bush according the plan drawn up by General [James L.] Jones. We agreed on the deployment of UN forces under U.S. command in the Palestinian state.

    Contemplate that had the PA not dragged its feet - for months - during Olmert's term, they would have had the two months necessary before his term ended.

    This, though, could be promising:
    whoever wins should come to the negotiating table – we're willing to negotiate.

    Guess we'll find out in 2013 if Abbas and the PA are finally serious about resuming negotiations or if that's just political pleasantries (and something the anti-Israel trolls can vacuously quote next year even if the PA continues to reject negotiations).
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3381

    Mar 20, 2015 5:17 AM GMT
    3.5 years later, pathological AyaTrollah pouncer is still seeking to spread his lies elsewhere, in hopes he can fool someone, anyone:

    Abbas could revive his 2009 counter-offer to Olmert (the first such thing from the PA in decades of negotiations... which he himself then suspended once Israel responded with interest).

    AyaTrollah> The Israelis were free to accept it at any time.

    Oh, so it was a take-it-or-leave-it offer rather than open to negotiation?

    AyaTrollah> "Accept it at any time" happens to be the precise OPPOSITE of "take-it-or-leave-it"

    So all Israel could do is either "Accept it" or not, it wasn't open to negotiations, but that's not "take-it-or-leave-it"?


    As your own source proved [points 11 and 12 in the OP], Livni responded with interest, asked some questions, pointed out errors in the PA map and was expecting clarifications at the next meeting with PA negotiators. Instead, Abbas pulled them and there were no more meetings.

    Tzippi Livni saidPerhaps the next thing we will do, after knowing the position of each of us, is to have the experts sit together and discuss the gaps and differences between the two maps.

    I suggest that you sit together, review and discuss the map. You may also want to correct parts of it such as the kibbutz that Terza said they exist in area for swap.

    Instead, Abbas pulled his negotiators and there were no more meetings.

    AyaTrollah> ?
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3381

    Mar 26, 2015 7:41 PM GMT
    wesv saidThat's an interesting map, but I've seen maps of the West Bank showing how complex this issue really is. The ones I've seen depict how Palestinian and Israeli settlements are not even connected. They're all dotted here and there in the West Bank.

    As far as borders go, that wouldn't be anywhere near the world's most complicated ones.

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-looks-to-belgium-holland-border-for-settlement-solution

    Baarle-Nassau_-_Baarle-Hertog-en.svg_-e1

  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3381

    Mar 27, 2015 1:51 PM GMT
    balkan-wars.jpg
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3381

    Mar 28, 2015 3:00 PM GMT
    You ain't seen nothing yet...

    Top 10 Unusual Borders
    http://listverse.com/2011/01/24/top-10-unusual-borders

    10 Most Unusual Borders
    http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/10borders.htm

    The 5 Stupidest Things Ever Done With Borders
    http://www.cracked.com/article_19925_the-5-stupidest-things-ever-done-with-borders.html

    It's Complicated: 5 Puzzling International Borders
    http://mentalfloss.com/article/29086/its-complicated-5-puzzling-international-borders

    As you can see, there have been creative solutions applied elsewhere.
    If you will it, there is a way.

    Recall that those who bark that the two-state solution "isn't possible anymore" are those who opposed it all along.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3381

    Mar 29, 2015 11:06 PM GMT
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3381

    Apr 04, 2015 5:45 AM GMT
    AyaTrolLiar> Nasrallah on brainless traitor Abu Mazen

    Well, we know who the AyaTrolLiar pouncer embraces.
    Not the moderate leader of the Palestinian Arabs who is (nominally) for peace.
    But the leader of a terrorist organization that prior to 9/11 had murdered more Americans than any other.
    A terrorist organization that has welcomed Jews coming to Israel because it would make it easier to murder all of them.

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/973888
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14303

    Apr 04, 2015 3:20 PM GMT
    The two nation-state solution is never going to work. The whole compromise needs to be permanently discarded and a unified one nation-state solution should be pursued instead. Otherwise there will never be peace in that troubled region.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3381

    Apr 05, 2015 6:52 AM GMT
    Because the one-nation state worked so well in Lebanon, Iraq, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia?
    (That last, at least, broke up peacefully.)

    You've got a large sub-group yelling and chanting, daily, "Death to the Jews", and you think they will suddenly peacefully coexist with Jews?

    Have you forgotten that was why the UN turned to the two-state solution in the first place back in 1947?

    And why not a one-state solution for the US with Canada... or Mexico?
    Perhaps also a one-state solution for Tibet and China?
    For Greece & Turkey? For Finland and Russia?
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3381

    May 01, 2015 2:12 PM GMT
    As always, in another thread....

    sxydrkhair> What other solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict do you support

    Duh.

    SDH> Leeron's people (Israeli settlers) want to take over the whole West Bank
    Do you think they want a two state solution?

    Israel has already withdrawn (back in the 1990s!) from the 40% of Trans/Jordan's former so-called "West Bank" (from 1949-1967, otherwise known for thousands of years as Judea & Samaria), the 40% where 97% of the Arab population resides.

    Under proposals such as above, most of the Jewish villagers in the disputed territories ("settlers") could stay in their homes and remain living in Israel. Why should they object?

    A Peace Now poll (admittedly dated) found that ~2/3rds would actually leave their homes in exchange for peace, that ~1/3rd would fight that by legal means, and that 2% would refuse.

    SDH> Leeron wants Palestinians out of the West Bank? Does he wants Palestinians gone?

    No, and I've never said anything of the sort.
    Try to keep your straw men to yourself.

    SDH> Leeron doesn't agree sharing Jerusalem with the Palestinians or divide Jerusalem into two capital city for both people.

    Wrong again.

    Though I wouldn't be surprised if ultimately the Palestinian Arab capital remains in Ramallah given that Jerusalem has never served as an Arab capital. It is revered as a holy site, but consider that neither Mecca or Medina are the Saudi Arabian capital.

    Regardless it would be up to the Palestinian Arab state to determine where it will place its capital, just as it is solely Israel's decision today where its capital is.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3381

    May 02, 2015 3:35 AM GMT
    SDH> We have both people on each side of the borders.

    If there is peace, that isn't much of a problem.
    (See border examples above.)
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3381

    May 11, 2015 4:05 AM GMT
    Israel has already withdrawn (back in the 1990s!) from the 40% of Trans/Jordan's former so-called "West Bank" (from 1949-1967, otherwise known for thousands of years as Judea & Samaria), the 40% where 97% of the Arab population resides.

    SDH> Israeli politicians (The Jewish Home) may not agree with you.

    They hold 8 (out of 120) seats in the Israeli Knesset (parliament).


    Under proposals such as above, most of the Jewish villagers in the disputed territories ("settlers") could stay in their homes and remain living in Israel. Why should they object?

    A Peace Now poll (admittedly dated) found that ~2/3rds would actually leave their homes in exchange for peace, that ~1/3rd would fight that by legal means, and that 2% would refuse.


    SDH> I don't support evacuating all the settlers out of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), they should be part of the Palestinian state with same right as other Palestinian citizens.

    That's great, but completely impractical and unrealistic. These Jews would be murdered long before they had any rights.


    I'm OK with sharing Jerusalem and it serving as both a Jewish and Arab capital. However, I wouldn't be surprised if ultimately the Palestinian Arab capital remains in Ramallah given that Jerusalem has never served as an Arab capital. It is revered as a holy site, but consider that neither Mecca or Medina are the Saudi Arabian capital.

    Regardless it would be up to the Palestinian Arab state to determine where it will place its capital, just as it is solely Israel's decision today where its capital is.


    SDH> Are you willing to give the Palestinians East Jerusalem if a two state solution has already achieved successfully

    Yes. The Arab neighborhoods of eastern Jerusalem can become "Al Quds" (the Arab name for Yerushalaim).
    As noted above, if they wish for it to be their capital (rather than Ramallah) is their decision.


    If there is peace, both having "people on each side of the borders" isn't much of a problem.
    (See border examples above.)

    SDH> I like the Clinton Compromise Parameters and the Olmert Plan. Evacuating and digging deep inside the West Bank (layout) what really bothering me.

    That is the price of making peace, and both sides must pay it.
    Jews/Israelis will be uprooted and evacuated from their homes in Judea & Samaria, areas which will become part of Arab Palestine.
    At the other end, the majority will remain in their homes, which will become part of Israel.


    SDH> there isn't much of a problem with the binational state/ confederation state/ federation state if both people want peace too.

    Just because people want peace doesn't mean they don't want their own self determination.
    Indeed, the vast majority on both sides rejects your idea, so there is a "problem" with that.

    It is impossible (even were it desirable) to go from the current status to a binational / one-state solution.
    Maybe 10, 25, 50 or 100 years after peace is established this will be possible.
    But you can't get there from here.

    As is, your idea is a ruse to destroy Jewish self-determination and the Jewish state by replacing it with an allegedly "binational" state which will have an Arab majority and won't be "binational". No one is falling for that.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3381

    May 12, 2015 12:23 PM GMT
    Israel has already withdrawn (back in the 1990s!) from the 40% of Trans/Jordan's former so-called "West Bank" (from 1949-1967, otherwise known for thousands of years as Judea & Samaria), the 40% where 97% of the Arab population resides.

    SDH> Israeli politicians (The Jewish Home) may not agree with you.

    They hold 8 (out of 120) seats in the Israeli Knesset (parliament).

    SDH> There are some Israeli settlers work in the Israeli Knesset. Some oppose a two state solution

    Some. Not a majority. Not a plurality. Not a large number.
    Not relevant.


    Under proposals such as above, most of the Jewish villagers in the disputed territories ("settlers") could stay in their homes and remain living in Israel. Why should they object?

    A Peace Now poll (admittedly dated) found that ~2/3rds would actually leave their homes in exchange for peace, that ~1/3rd would fight that by legal means, and that 2% would refuse.


    SDH> Last time I've read an article it said, "43% are willing to leave their home."

    Under the Olmert plan, only about 12% would need to.


    SDH> I don't support evacuating all the settlers out of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), they should be part of the Palestinian state with same right as other Palestinian citizens.

    That's great, but completely impractical and unrealistic.
    These Jews would be murdered long before they had any rights.

    SDH> PLO leaders always referred to the idea of a secular democratic state. The concept of a multi-religious state of Palestine has always been part of the historic Palestinian narrative (not Hamas).

    The problem is the gap between "narrative" and reality.
    The Soviet constitution guaranteed freedom of speech - that didn't help those in the gulags.

    Say Jews had stayed behind in Gaza after the IDF withdrew.
    What do you think would've been their fate after the Hamas coup?
    (Assuming they survived that long....)


    I'm OK with sharing Jerusalem and it serving as both a Jewish and Arab capital. However, I wouldn't be surprised if ultimately the Palestinian Arab capital remains in Ramallah given that Jerusalem has never served as an Arab capital. It is revered as a holy site, but consider that neither Mecca or Medina are the Saudi Arabian capital.

    Regardless it would be up to the Palestinian Arab state to determine where it will place its capital, just as it is solely Israel's decision today where its capital is.


    SDH> Are you willing to give the Palestinians East Jerusalem if a two state solution has already achieved successfully

    Yes. The Arab neighborhoods of eastern Jerusalem can become "Al Quds" (the Arab name for Yerushalaim).
    As noted above, if they wish for it to be their capital (rather than Ramallah) is their decision.

    SDH> I agree with that 100%. Interesting how both of us talk about capital city. I wouldn't mind Tel Aviv be the capital for state of Israel and Ramallah would be the capital for state of Palestine. Then Jerusalem would be our main capital for both states. Just like Washington DC.

    We're not talking "federation", not yet at least.
    We already chose Jerusalem as our capital.
    You can chose yours as you wish.


    If there is peace, both having "people on each side of the borders" isn't much of a problem.
    (See border examples above.)

    SDH> I like the Clinton Compromise Parameters and the Olmert Plan. Evacuating and digging deep inside the West Bank (layout) what really bothering me.

    That is the price of making peace, and both sides must pay it.
    Jews/Israelis will be uprooted and evacuated from their homes in Judea & Samaria, areas which will become part of Arab Palestine.
    At the other end, the majority will remain in their homes, which will become part of Israel.

    SDH> I understand.

    Unfortunately your understanding comes 14 years too late for Clinton and 6 years too late for Olmert.

    But now that you understand, you may want to explain it to your friends and advocate this rather than constantly seeking to vilify Israel, perpetuating the conflict rather than seeking to end it.


    SDH> there isn't much of a problem with the binational state/ confederation state/ federation state if both people want peace too.

    Just because people want peace doesn't mean they don't want their own self determination.
    Indeed, the vast majority on both sides rejects your idea, so there is a "problem" with that.

    It is impossible (even were it desirable) to go from the current status to a binational / one-state solution.
    Maybe 10, 25, 50 or 100 years after peace is established this will be possible.
    But you can't get there from here.

    As is, your idea is a ruse to destroy Jewish self-determination and the Jewish state by replacing it with an allegedly "binational" state which will have an Arab majority and won't be "binational". No one is falling for that.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3381

    May 13, 2015 12:37 PM GMT
    Some people try to use those loaded words as if they are an argument.
    They aren't.

    You need to decide if you want a "binational state" ("one-state solution") or if you want Palestinian Arab self-determination.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14303

    May 13, 2015 12:40 PM GMT
    The two nation-state solution will never work so it is time to permanently discard this whole foolhardy parameter of a two nation-state between Israelis and Palestinians. Dividing up this ancient land is just going to lead to more violent unrest and deep seated distrust among all the people in this ancient land. A one nation-state solution is the only viable answer providing that Israelis and Palestinians have full equality and protection under the law.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3381

    May 13, 2015 2:32 PM GMT
    It's no surprise that RoadRageRob, on record saying that "Jews are international troublemakers", that "Jews have it coming" and that "Jews need to be taught a hard lesson" seeks a political solution that quashes Jewish self-determination:

    RoadRageRob repeatedThe two nation-state solution will never work... A one nation-state solution is the only viable answer

    Nor is it surprising that he vapidly repeats what he said last month even when he couldn't respond to the following:

    R1. Because the one-nation state worked so well in Lebanon, Iraq, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia?
    (That last, at least, broke up peacefully.)

    RRR> ?


    R2. You've got a large sub-group yelling and chanting, daily, "Death to the Jews", and you think they will suddenly peacefully coexist with Jews?

    RRR> ?


    R3. Have you forgotten that was why the UN turned to the two-state solution in the first place back in 1947?

    RRR> ?


    R4. And why not a one-state solution for the US with Canada... or Mexico?
    Perhaps also a one-state solution for Tibet and China?
    For Greece & Turkey? For Finland and Russia?

    RRR> ?


    RoadRageRob is not motivated because he seeks a political solution, but by his hatred of and animus toward Jews.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3381

    May 14, 2015 12:23 AM GMT
    Samer, you need to decide if you want a "binational state" ("one-state solution") or if you want Palestinian Arab self-determination.

    SDH> I support a federation of Israel-Palestine, a confederation of Israel-Palestine or binational state. Three years ago when I was visiting my relatives in Judea and Samaria, I was a two stater.

    Not really, based on your comments on RJ as far back as 2008.

    Recall that those who claim the two-state solution is "now" impossible (or no longer possible) are those who were against it from the start.


    SDH> a two state solution is very complicated where both people want the same land and want the same capital.

    See border scenarios presented on page 1 which address this.

    The question isn't if it is "complicated" but if it is doable. It is.
    Heck, I'd argue that a "bi-national state" is even more "complicated" and not doable (can't get there from here).


    SDH> I don't care about the Palestinian Arab self-determination anymore like I used to, because it doesn't seems to happen.

    By that metric, you don't care about a "federation", either, "because it doesn't seem to happen".

    Seems the only thing you care about is to eliminate the Jewish state, one way or another.
    (Despite that it doesn't seem to happen.)


    SDH> Even John Kerry, Romney Mitt, Obama and some others agreed.

    Each of these people support the two-state solution.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3381

    May 14, 2015 3:17 AM GMT
    Samer, you need to decide if you want a "binational state" ("one-state solution") or if you want Palestinian Arab self-determination.

    SDH> How can I decide Palestinian Arab self-determination when you ignore that Judea and Samaria is part of Israel's district?

    Israel has already withdrawn from the portions where 97% of the Arabs reside, and is willing to withdraw from a total of about 95% of the area, too.


    SDH> I support a federation of Israel-Palestine, a confederation of Israel-Palestine or binational state. Three years ago when I was visiting my relatives in Judea and Samaria, I was a two stater.

    Not really, based on your comments on RJ as far back as 2008.

    SDH> I wasn't really into Israeli-Palestinian conflict like today. I was self-defense

    No, you were bad-mouthing Israel, calling for it to be boycotted from the Olympics, etc. You were more anti-Israel than pro-Palestinian.


    Recall that those who claim the two-state solution is "now" impossible (or no longer possible) are those who were against it from the start.

    If you will it, it is not a dream.


    SDH> a two state solution is very complicated where both people want the same land and want the same capital.

    See border scenarios presented on page 1 which address this.

    SDH> ?

    The question isn't if it is "complicated" but if it is doable. It is.

    SDH> ?


    Heck, I'd argue that a "bi-national state" is even more "complicated" and not doable (can't get there from here).

    SDH> How binational state is even more complicated when both people are already using the same roads, same Israeli products, and Israel's post office?

    You're the one constantly complaining about the status quo, that there are allegedly "Jew only" roads, boasting that there is a Palestinian post office, etc.


    SDH> I don't care about the Palestinian Arab self-determination anymore like I used to, because it doesn't seems to happen.

    By that metric, you don't care about a "federation", either, "because it doesn't seem to happen".

    SDH> I do support federation and confederation of Israel (Jewish state) and Palestine (Palestinian Arab state).

    But it is no more happening than a two-state solution.
    So why hold on to one, and the less likely one at that?


    Seems the only thing you care about is to eliminate the Jewish state, one way or another.
    (Despite that it doesn't seem to happen.)


    SDH> So how that [con/federation] "eliminate the Jewish state"?

    That is different from a "binational" "one-state solution" which you are pushing.

    A confederation is even more complicated than a two-state solution because first you have to have those two states. Then you have to build a con/federation on top of that.


    SDH> Even John Kerry, Romney Mitt, Obama and some others agreed.

    Each of these people support the two-state solution.

    SDH> John Kerry: "a two state solution will be impossible IF not achieved within two years."

    That is supporting the two-state solution, trying to catalyze it with a deadline (real or not).

    SDH> Romney: "almost impossible"

    That's not "impossible", and is again support and aspiration for the two-state solution.

    SDH> Obama: "Netanyahu’s efforts to walk back his rejection of a Palestinian state"

    Netanyahu clarified his comments the next day, but regardless Obama's comment says nothing about him not supporting the two-state solution. He does.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3381

    May 14, 2015 1:18 PM GMT
    Samer, you need to decide if you want a "binational state" ("one-state solution") or if you want Palestinian Arab self-determination.

    SDH> How can I decide Palestinian Arab self-determination when you ignore that Judea and Samaria is part of Israel's district?

    Israel has already withdrawn from the portions where 97% of the Arabs reside, and is willing to withdraw from a total of about 95% of the area, too.

    SDH> They still enter the Palestinian areas.

    So what? The point is that there are "Palestinian Areas".
    My numbers aren't random. I'm sure you know there are Areas A, B & C.

    The larger point is that not only is Israel willing to withdraw for peace (which you pretend to doubt) but that it already has.


    SDH> I support a federation of Israel-Palestine, a confederation of Israel-Palestine or binational state. Three years ago when I was visiting my relatives in Judea and Samaria, I was a two stater.

    Not really, based on your comments on RJ as far back as 2008.

    SDH> I wasn't really into Israeli-Palestinian conflict like today. I was self-defense

    No, you were bad-mouthing Israel, calling for it to be boycotted from the Olympics, etc. You were more anti-Israel than pro-Palestinian.

    SDH> It all started when you were bad-mouthing Palestinian people.

    That's a lie. I started the first thread dedicated to the topic, but before that you were posting crap in completely unrelated threads (e.g. the 2008 Olympics).


    Recall that those who claim the two-state solution is "now" impossible (or no longer possible) are those who were against it from the start.

    If you will it, it is not a dream.

    SDH> [doesn't will it]


    SDH> a two state solution is very complicated where both people want the same land and want the same capital.

    See border scenarios presented on page 1 which address this.

    SDH> I don't like the map layout how it curve deep in the middle of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria).

    What you don't like is compromise.

    I don't like that 65,000 Jews will be forced out of their homes (and 0 Arabs).
    But if that makes peace possible, so be it.

    Isn't forcing people out of their homes much worse than a funny shaped border with "fingers"?


    The question isn't if it is "complicated" but if it is doable. It is.

    SDH> ??


    A "bi-national state" is even more "complicated" and not doable (can't get there from here).

    SDH> How binational state is even more complicated when both people are already using the same roads, same Israeli products, and Israel's post office?

    You're the one constantly complaining about the status quo, that there are allegedly "Jew only" roads, boasting that there is a Palestinian post office, etc.

    SDH> [Misses the point and repeats complaints, thus proving my point for me.]


    SDH> I don't care about the Palestinian Arab self-determination anymore like I used to, because it doesn't seems to happen.

    By that metric, you don't care about a "federation", either, "because it doesn't seem to happen".

    SDH> I do support federation and confederation of Israel (Jewish state) and Palestine (Palestinian Arab state).

    But it is no more happening than a two-state solution.
    So why hold on to one, and the less likely one at that?

    SDH> Do you think a two state solution will happen? It has been 20 years now.

    It will, as soon as people like you give it a chance. Unfortunately only about 50% of the Palestinian Arabs in the territories support this, making the leadership wary of doing so too much (and, of course, Hamas categorically opposes any peaceful solution with Israel).


    Seems the only thing you care about is to eliminate the Jewish state, one way or another.
    (Despite that it doesn't seem to happen.)


    SDH> So how that [con/federation] "eliminate the Jewish state"?

    That is different from a "binational" "one-state solution" which you are pushing.

    SDH> Binational state that represents both people. 50/50

    Like Lebanon? Iraq? Yugoslavia? Czechoslovakia?
    It won't be 50/50.
    Given that 80% of Palestinian Arabs in the territories support the "Hamas way", it won't be peaceful.


    A confederation is even more complicated than a two-state solution because first you have to have those two states. Then you have to build a con/federation on top of that.

    SDH> I don't think that is a problem

    Then you just proved the two-state solution is possible and not a problem.

    Which is why the people you mentioned (Obama, Kerry, Romney) support it and not your ideas of anything but a solution that allows a Jewish state to exist.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3381

    May 21, 2015 4:38 AM GMT
    Elsewhere:

    SDH> Mnar Muhawesh: One State Solution Is Only Solution For Peace In Israel

    If that's true ("only"), and by spamming that I suppose you agree, then other solutions - including con/federation - are not possible.