settlements. they all vote in elections. no PM will be able to pull it back. facts on the ground.
But unless Israel annexes Area C of the West Bank, these settlers aren't legally living IN Israel! Did U.N Resolution 242 give them special status?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
settlements. they all vote in elections. no PM will be able to pull it back. facts on the ground.
But unless Israel annexes Area C of the West Bank, these settlers aren't legally living IN Israel! Did U.N Resolution 242 give them special status?
And yet every peace deal that has gotten even vaguely close includes Israel keeping a great many of them...It's almost like UN resolutions don't matter much...
https://iajv99.wordpress.com/2012/1...lestine-two-state-solution-brings-fresh-hope/
We could argue over who killed it, but what’s the point? It’s increasingly obvious that a continued insistence on zombie peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians is deluded, because the two-state principle framing them is dead. To précis: it’s now impossible to remove half a million Jewish settlers and infrastructure from the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem; the international community is opposed to settlements on paper but does nothing in practice, and after 19 years of failed two-state talks, the fault plainly lies in the plan, not the leadership.
This view has been expressed more vocally of late on both sides, from unlikely quarters and for different reasons. Prominent Israeli commentators have declared the end of the two-state period. The latest to do so was the mainstream, veteran journalist Nahum Barnea, who in August wrote in the mass-circulation daily Yediot Aharonot that the Oslo two-state peace process is dead.
His view – “Everybody knows how this will end. There will be a bi-national [state],” he clarified on Israeli TV – is shared by others once supportive of the Oslo framework but now calling time on it. “I do not give up on the two-state solution on ideological grounds,” wrote Haaretz columnist Carlo Strenger last month. “I give up on it because it will not happen.”
Alongside that, we’re starting to see the practical consequences of those Jewish settlers who, surprisingly, started talking about one-state approaches two years ago. Last week, a Palestinian village in an Israel-controlled area of the West Bank was given building permits – the first time that’s happened during a 45-year Israeli occupation – thanks to petitions from their Jewish settler neighbours.
Meanwhile, rightwing Israeli politicians such as Knesset speaker Reuven Rivlin and ex-defence minister Moshe Arens have been arguing for one state – and while their vision isn’t premised on immediate equal citizenship, they have taken the sting out of the subject.
Among Palestinians, support for a one-state approach is also growing. A poll last month showed that support for a one-state formulation premised on equal rights has inched up among both Palestinians and Israelis. In the West Bank, there are fresh peaks of disillusion with the Palestinian Authority – whose tenure was always supposed to be temporary, pending statehood, as set out in the Oslo Accords.
Unelected, tainted by corruption, aid-dependent and viewed as enforcers of the Israeli occupation, the PA’s last stab at credibility was probably its statehood bid at the UN last year. But you could practically hear the hope hissing out of that media-inflated bid when, pressured by the US, Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas switched to a hollowed-out version that was meaningless and destined to fail.
Now a new generation of Palestinian activists, in part inspired by the Arab uprisings in the region, are bypassing territorial demands to focus on civil rights and freedoms...
Pretty ironic considering the role of the United Nations in the creation of modern Israel. This 2012 Guardian (U.K) article and reposted on the Independent Australian Jewish Voices website, says there is growing support, from both sides, for a bi-national solution instead of two states.
I'm a fan of the one-state solution. Jews deserve to live in the area. Palestinians deserve to live in the area. There should never in international law be allowed a state where one ethnic or religious group is favoured over any other.
A bi or multi-national (Christians assign value to Jerusalem as well as Bethlehem too) state is I think the only ethical way forward for all cultures.
If Hamas wants an ethnically pure Islamic State they should be told to go **** themselves.
Likewise any other religion or ethnic group (or 'splinter' thereof) that rejects an open, tolerant and equal society.
His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
The UN stuffing it all up you mean?
If you want a one state solution, go back further to 1917 and the the Balfour declaration (which was incorporated into the treaty of Sevres and the League of nations mandate)
herzl was before everything, and chaim weizmann, and ze'ev jabotinsky. it was more from the central/eastern antisemitism pre-3rd reich, and even predated d'affaire DreyfusThose words would have been great if subsequent events played out like they were intended to. I guess the Balfour signatories couldn't predict a Hitler rising out of the ruined Weimar Republic and implanting a 'never again' edict into those Jews that sought Israel as a refuge.
While 'never again' is most definitely understandable in light of what the Shoah brought to and inflicted on the Jewish people, it has unfortunately poisoned the modern Israeli mindset.
herzl was before everything, and chaim weizmann, and ze'ev jabotinsky. it was more from the central/eastern antisemitism pre-3rd reich, and even predated d'affaire Dreyfus
Didn't read whole thread. Out of here. Loony tune alert.
there is nothing quite like a thread full people using pictures with writing on it to make a point
Maybe something to do with the Palestinians shooting first?
what ever helps you sleep at night aye
Hey, you're the one who thinks only Australians who die of terrorism count. (at least when you're trying to show how uncommon it is).
incorrect
i dont think australian life is more special than non-australian
patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel...
Yet somehow you reverted to that when the 'facts' you claimed were shown to be complete crap.
Your unhealthy obsession with Israel and the jooos is getting rather boring.
There must be an answer. This is not a coincidence. Read a News/Fairfax/ABC article on the current round of Israeli Defence Force bombing of innocent Arab civilians and you would think that the Israelis were merely 'defending themselves'. The same way the US 'defended itself' by invading and pillaging Iraq.
Here is a graphic I have yet to see anywhere in the Aus msm:
And here is a concise summary of what has been taking place in Palestine over the past couple of weeks:
I will give credit to the ABC for the fact that they did air this Louis Theroux documentary. But not many people watch these kinds of documentaries; the vast majority of people get their 'information' from news bulletins and newspapers. Why is it that if you were to ask the average Australian today about what is happening in Israel, they would likely be completely oblivious to the genocide taking place, and probably even supportive of Israel 'defending itself'?