You sound like Obama. He repeated mantra about defining borders, but he hasn’t done anything. At all. Since he took office. Anywho.
I said before that I think it will would fall close to the 67 border with the exceptions of J’Lem and the suburbs. There will be military outposts in the WB, especially near Jordan, and hopefully in coordination with Palestinian police (like they do now, but better). I imagine Jordan won’t object to such an agreement as they are tired of illegal Palestinian immigrants and their growing Palestinian population.
And a land swap. It would look like a drunk person playing with an Etch a Sketch, but hey. It works.
Sound familiar? It’s what Netanyahu has hinted, what Barak wanted, and has been the longstanding general consensus for over ten years (with the exception of Jerusalem as that’s continually tabled).
Right of Return: None, but loosen up reunification laws
Compensation: Infrastructure & aid.
Treaties: Non-aggression & economic. Also: Ensure that Palestinians are being hired in the WB for construction jobs and such.
but…Not sure the Palestinian people will accept any of that.
The PLO is getting a lot further with Netanyahu than with Sharon (ironically).
I am not sure why you are fixated on denigrating religion in every thread where you post, but trying to use that theme as an end run around my clear instructions to stop posting your inflammatory nonsense about Israel relying on religious beliefs to establish their nation or borders without some evidence is not acceptable.
Your silly claim that they want to “kill dark skinned people” is also inflammatory nonsense.
This is a Warning to stop trolling on the subject.
I take that as a compliment. I don’t see that Obama has any responsibility to do anything himself, except put pressure on both sides to draw a damn line and end it, and stop fucking distracting the rest of the world with petty local squabbles.
I hate to tell you but the Palestinians aren’t anymore “dark skinned” than the Israelis.
With your attacks on religion(which makes little sense since the most extreme political party in Israel is militantly secular) and you’re trying to frame this as a “dark skinned” versus “light skinned” issue, you seem to be trying to force a complicated issue Middle Eastern square peg into a western round hole.
You might as well claim that Rwanda occurred because the Hutus enjoyed killing “dark skinned people” and blame the Troubles in Ulster on the Pope.
The point was their choosing Palestine to move to, not Israel. Why the hell would they do that, unless it was with the conviction that the land they were moving to was Israel? I do not understand why you think it matters where they came from originally, or why they left.
Question: Who’s in control of the land in question? With authority comes responsibility, wouldn’t you say?
It is a shame that you cannot discuss the subject on anything other than a black/white, “Jews good, Arabs bad” basis, just as it is a shame that you resorted to the childish evasion of “Any questioning of the policies of the government currently in office in Israel is antisemitic”.
That does appear to be the case.
There’s a lot to listen to, though. Can you do that?
Perhaps you can tell us your own version of how the “settlements” and the wall came into being, then. It ought to be a fascinating tale.
There won’t be an answer posted here by a settlement supporter / Netanyahu apologist. The honest answer, the Jordan River, can’t be acknowledged publicly.
Pretty much any whose borders were set during a period of colonization. But, closer to home, the US/Canada border, the US/Russia border, half of the US/Mexico border … really, I’m surprised at you.
Then perhaps you could offer us your own hypothesis as to what truly underlies the widespread support in Israel, including by the government, for establishing Jewish settlements in Palestine. There’s a “tiny minority” who are willing to publicly state it as a religious doctrine about which discussion is futile, sure, but how about the rest of them? And how can the settlements be “irrelevant” to a sincere peacemaking process?
Heh. The US/Canadian border was most definitely originally established by war (as was, of course, the US/Mexico border, with the sole exception of the Gadsden Purchase).
Much fiddling of the Canadian/US border was accomplished subsequently, under threat of war or small-scale conflict (see for example the Aroostook War and the Oregon boundary dispute - anyone remember "“Fifty-Four Forty or Fight!”?). However, the basic border proper came about as a result of the Treaty of Paris following the US Revolution.
Seems those ignorant of history are liable to see it repeated … and be surprised.
You have responded to a specific statement with a broad brush misunderstanding, trying to drag me into a discussion in which I do not choose to engage.
Naxos is fixated on the idea that the only reason that Israel exists is to promote some version of Judaism. This is not a fact and his persistent interjection of that comment is trolling. There are more than enough posters engaged in the real discussion and I am not expressing any opinion on the topic.
You have enough other posters with whom to feud; leave me out of it.
Who’s “they”? I think you and Citizen Pained are talking past each other. The “six million” she’s talking about are Israeli Jews, who either did choose to move to Israel, or are descendents of those who did, and many of whom are or are descended from refugees (like the Ashkenazi who came to Israel before, during, and and after the Holocaust, and the Mizrahi who were forced out of their countries after Israel was founded.
You’re right. It took two wars, not one to establish that border-- The American Revolution and the War of 1812. I’ll have to be more careful next time.