Israel vs Palestine

[ISREAL63]

I just think that a peaceful, fair resolution to the conflict would be a major step towards not the elimination of crime, but the proof that humans are not inherently selfish and savage. Crimes will go on, but it's the responsibility of nations and individuals to choose not to contribute to the cycle.

 

You are right a solution would be a major step. But i have one question The peace possess is basically Israel gives land and in return receives peace from the Palestinians can we agree on that? If yes then Israel started this possess by handing over the Gaza Strip but hasn't seen the peace. The Israeli Prime Minster said he would gladly give more land once Israel receives peace. So what do you do hand over more land?

[Nifflin]

I think the Palestinians would accept the following solutions (in order of most acceptable to least acceptable);

 

Returning of all lands to Palestine.

Allowing Palestinians the right of return and right to be Israeli citizens.

Return to 1949 borders.

Return to 1967 borders.

Current borders.

 

I think the first three are actually realistic solutions. 1967 borders would be a stretch. In any case the right of return would be essential.

 

Another factor to consider is the status of Jerusalem. When I visited there I was told of a peculiar system for administering the Holy Sepulchre, the Christian holy site. In order to prevent the different Christian factions from feuding over space within the Sepulchre during holidays, the key and authority was given to Muslim families to guard. As outsiders they are able to mediate disputes fairly.

 

A similar system I think could resolve the status of Jerusalem. Perhaps some sort of UN jurisdiction (run by outsiders) which would mediate any disputes over the joint administration of the city.

 

Edit: Gaza is tiny and peace will not happen as long as settlements continue to be built. I think lifting the blockade on Gaza and a cease to settlement construction would need to be two precursors to peace talks.

[The_Gabe]

I think the Palestinians would accept the following solutions (in order of most acceptable to least acceptable);

 

Returning of all lands to Palestine.

Allowing Palestinians the right of return and right to be Israeli citizens.

Return to 1949 borders.

Return to 1967 borders.

Current borders.

 

I think the first three are actually realistic solutions. 1967 borders would be a stretch. In any case the right of return would be essential.

 

Another factor to consider is the status of Jerusalem. When I visited there I was told of a peculiar system for administering the Holy Sepulchre, the Christian holy site. In order to prevent the different Christian factions from feuding over space within the Sepulchre during holidays, the key and authority was given to Muslim families to guard. As outsiders they are able to mediate disputes fairly.

 

A similar system I think could resolve the status of Jerusalem. Perhaps some sort of UN jurisdiction (run by outsiders) which would mediate any disputes over the joint administration of the city.

 

Edit: Gaza is tiny and peace will not happen as long as settlements continue to be built. I think lifting the blockade on Gaza and a cease to settlement construction would need to be two precursors to peace talks.

 

Number 2 and possibly 5 are the only ones I would agree on. The others (specially the first) made me laugh. Those solutions are not realistic at all.

[Nomrombom]

What exactly is the argument for Israel's right to the land?

[fakeitormakeit2]

What exactly is the argument for Israel's right to the land?

Some kind of fallacious idea that it is their land by inheritance derived from their descent and race, even though most European Jews don't even have proof they're descendents of anyone from Israel.

[Nomrombom]

What exactly is the argument for Israel's right to the land?

Some kind of fallacious idea that it is their land by inheritance derived from their descent and race, even though most European Jews don't even have proof they're descendents of anyone from Israel.

More like the right to keep the land that they conquered when they weren't even the aggressors - which is a perfectly legitimate right to have. Initially, they would have had no right to the land, in much the same way that the American revolutionaries had no right to the colonies - they were British colonies, first controlled by the British, after all. However, like the American revolutionaries, they were attacked and were victorious, giving them the right to control the land. The problem is the considerable number of human rights violations that have been reported on both sides is building up the pressure that will eventually result in a huge conflict that can only hurt innocent people. The fact of the matter is that both sides would be better off with a fair one or two state solution, but unfortunately both sides are run by narrow-minded extremists who are against any sort of compromise.

 

Seems like a good summary of it all to me.

[Nifflin]

I think the Palestinians would accept the following solutions (in order of most acceptable to least acceptable);

 

Returning of all lands to Palestine.

Allowing Palestinians the right of return and right to be Israeli citizens.

Return to 1949 borders.

Return to 1967 borders.

Current borders.

 

I think the first three are actually realistic solutions. 1967 borders would be a stretch. In any case the right of return would be essential.

 

Another factor to consider is the status of Jerusalem. When I visited there I was told of a peculiar system for administering the Holy Sepulchre, the Christian holy site. In order to prevent the different Christian factions from feuding over space within the Sepulchre during holidays, the key and authority was given to Muslim families to guard. As outsiders they are able to mediate disputes fairly.

 

A similar system I think could resolve the status of Jerusalem. Perhaps some sort of UN jurisdiction (run by outsiders) which would mediate any disputes over the joint administration of the city.

 

Edit: Gaza is tiny and peace will not happen as long as settlements continue to be built. I think lifting the blockade on Gaza and a cease to settlement construction would need to be two precursors to peace talks.

 

Number 2 and possibly 5 are the only ones I would agree on. The others (specially the first) made me laugh. Those solutions are not realistic at all.

 

Well, Israel would never settle for allowing citizenship and right of return because it is a democracy and it would end the concept of "a Jewish State."

 

I personally think 1949 borders or 1967 borders is what would happen in a two state solution. You have to understand that the Palestinians will not accept an unfair solution, just like the Israelis wouldn't. Even 1949 borders would leave many people who would have to deal with never getting their land back.

[ISREAL63]

Well, Israel would never settle for allowing citizenship and right of return because it is a democracy and it would end the concept of "a Jewish State."

 

I personally think 1949 borders or 1967 borders is what would happen in a two state solution. You have to understand that the Palestinians will not accept an unfair solution, just like the Israelis wouldn't. Even 1949 borders would leave many people who would have to deal with never getting their land back.

 

You are right Israel won't allow anybody to return that is the point of a 2 state solution,but what do you do when one want peace and the other doesn't? . As the Israeli prime minster said Jerusalem is Israel and it won't be divided.

[Nomrombom]

Jerusalem is Israel and it won't be divided.

 

So one of the most sacred and holy Muslim sites should be cut off from Muslims?

[The_Gabe]

Jerusalem is Israel and it won't be divided.

 

So one of the most sacred and holy Muslim sites should be cut off from Muslims?

 

Except that Jerusalem is never mentioned in the Quran once.

[ISREAL63]

Jerusalem is Israel and it won't be divided.

 

So one of the most sacred and holy Muslim sites should be cut off from Muslims?

 

What The Gabe said and from 1948-1967 when it was under Jordain control not Jew or Cristian was allowed to visit the old city. Since the liberation of the old city every religion is allowed to visit. Jerusalem is the most sacred place in Judaism why was it cut off then?

[The_Gabe]

Jerusalem is Israel and it won't be divided.

 

So one of the most sacred and holy Muslim sites should be cut off from Muslims?

 

What The Gabe said and from 1948-1967, when it was under Jordan's control, Jew or Christian were not allowed to visit the old city. Since the liberation of the old city every religion is allowed to visit. Jerusalem is the most sacred place in Judaism so why was it cut off then?

 

Nomrombom, do you even realize what had happened when Muslims did have control of the city? They destroyed synagogues, violated cemeteries and used stones from them for building and completely brought the city into chaos.

 

For a matter of fact, when Israel was in trouble, the UN showed no sign of caring. It's really kind of sad how they are trying to do something now when Israel is strong and surviving, as opposed to the other side.

[Nifflin]

Well there will be no peace if Israel isn't willing to compromise about Jerusalem. That's why I feel it should be jointly administered with mediation coming from perhaps a UN advisory panel composed of a mixture of countries with histories of being neutral on the Israel/Palestine issue.

 

Edit: @ Gabe and Isreal63

 

I know for certain that under Jordanian control Jews and Christians could visit the city, just not enter certain Muslim holy sites. I know this because I've talked to Jews, Muslims and Christians who have lived in the Old City for generations. Gabe, how many native Muslims, Christians and Jews have you talked to in the older parts of Jerusalem?

[ISREAL63]

Well there will be no peace if Israel isn't willing to compromise about Jerusalem. That's why I feel it should be jointly administered with mediation coming from perhaps a UN advisory panel composed of a mixture of countries with histories of being neutral on the Israel/Palestine issue.

 

Edit: @ Gabe and Isreal63

 

I know for certain that under Jordanian control Jews and Christians could visit the city, just not enter certain Muslim holy sites. I know this because I've talked to Jews, Muslims and Christians who have lived in the Old City for generations. Gabe, how many native Muslims, Christians and Jews have you talked to in the older parts of Jerusalem?

 

I am sorry to say but you are wrong, Jews were not allowed into Old city since they were expelled in 1948. I am starting to doubt these people you talk to because this a strait out Lie.

 

From the period of 1948 to 1967, Jordan demolished 58 synagogues in Jerusalems Old City. The Mount of Olives is a mountain ridge east of Jerusalem which from Biblical times until today is a cemetery and the site of many important Biblical events. It is important to not only Jews, but also to Christians and Muslims, and many important religious events are tied to this historical location. During the period of Jordanian control over eastern Jerusalem and the Temple Mount from 1948 until 1967, King Hussein of Jordan allowed the construction of a hotel access road to the Intercontinental Hotel which spanned across the Mount of Olives cemetery, where hundreds of Jewish gravestones were bulldozed and desecrated. On April 3, 1949, Israel and Jordan signed an Armistice Agreement. One of the conditions of the GAA was that a special committee would be formed to make arrangements for safe movement of traffic between Jerusalem and the Mount Scopus campus of Hebrew University, as well as free access to Holy Places. The Jordanians, by denying access to Jews to enter the Old City and Judaisms holiest sites, directly violated the GAA. Under the Jordanian control of East Jerusalem, Jews were denied access to the Western Wall and Temple Mount. Likewise, in Hebron, Jews were not allowed to enter the Tomb of the Patriarchs and other holy places in Bethlehem. Similarly, during Jordanian rule (and eventual annexation) of the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem from 1948 to 1967, Israeli Christians and Muslims were also barred from their own respective Holy Places.

 

948-1967: Jordanian Occupation of Eastern Jerusalem

Jerusalem 1948-1967

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamization_of_Jerusalem_under_Jordanian_occupation

 

My friend his grandfather grew up in the old city his family was there for generations. During the war he was forced from his home, after the war his family tried to reenter the old city but they were not allowed

[ISREAL63]

Except that Jerusalem is never mentioned in the Quran once.

"Muhammad's journey to Jerusalem is mentioned in the Qur'an, in the verse (17:1). Al Qur'anic commentators and Islamic scholars take this as a reference to Jerusalem.[2] The verse states:

Glory to He (God) Who did take His servant for a Journey by night from the Sacred Mosque to the farthest Mosque, whose precincts We did bless (Yusuf Ali's translation). "

 

-wikipedia

 

Could you stay on topic or just don't post if you want to talk about religion go here .

[ISREAL63]

"Glory to He (God) Who did take His servant for a Journey by night from the Sacred Mosque to the farthest Mosque"

 

Where in this sentence those it say Jerusalem? It is never mentioned it is hinted now please get back on topic or go to the religion topic.

[Napalm]

Except that Jerusalem is never mentioned in the Quran once.

"Muhammad's journey to Jerusalem is mentioned in the Qur'an, in the verse (17:1). Al Qur'anic commentators and Islamic scholars take this as a reference to Jerusalem.[2] The verse states:

“ Glory to He (God) Who did take His servant for a Journey by night from the Sacred Mosque to the farthest Mosque, whose precincts We did bless (Yusuf Ali's translation). „"

 

-wikipedia

 

Could you stay on topic or just don't post if you want to talk about religion go here .

 

First of all, the importance of Jerusalem is relevant to the topic of the administration of the lands, which is the god damn conflict we're discussing. Second, he was only replying to Gabe's post. I've seen you do this like 3 times already in this thread, first you bring up something to back your posts up, then when someone proves it wrong you tell them it's off-topic. Get your [cabbage] together, bro.

[ISREAL63]

Could you stay on topic or just don't post if you want to talk about religion go here .

 

First of all, the importance of Jerusalem is relevant to the topic of the administration of the lands, which is the god damn conflict we're discussing. Second, he was only replying to Gabe's post. I've seen you do this like 3 times already in this thread, first you bring up something to back your posts up, then when someone proves it wrong you tell them it's off-topic. Get your [cabbage] together, bro.

 

the importance of Jerusalem is relevant that is correct, but we are not debating religion here.

 

Second the Gabe was quoting something i said when he posted. Also when did he prove me wrong, just because you say that doesn't make it true. So why not go back on topic instead calling me out which you seem to have done many times. How about you say something creative on the topic

 

Roccodog

 

"Al Qur'anic commentators and Islamic scholars take this as a reference to Jerusalem.[2]"

 

You said it yourself commentators meaning it wasn't part of it. In someone's opinion it is in reference to it. Not actuality in it

[obfuscator]

Let the moderators decide when and if something is off topic, please. I think it's quite relevant to the discussion, as it's being used to attempt to prove Islam has some stake in Jerusalem.

[ISREAL63]

Let the moderators decide when and if something is off topic, please. I think it's quite relevant to the discussion, as it's being used to attempt to prove Islam has some stake in Jerusalem.

 

I didn't say Islam doesn't have right to Jerusalem, but that we are not arguing religiously who has the right to Jerusalem. Jews, Christians and Islam have the right to Jerusalem to be shared. As i said before Under Israeli law all religions are allowed to enter Jerusalem. As appose to when Jordan ruled no Jews or Christians were allowed to visit the old city.

[Nifflin]

 

I know for certain that under Jordanian control Jews and Christians could visit the city, just not enter certain Muslim holy sites. I know this because I've talked to Jews, Muslims and Christians who have lived in the Old City for generations. Gabe, how many native Muslims, Christians and Jews have you talked to in the older parts of Jerusalem?

 

I am sorry to say but you are wrong, Jews were not allowed into Old city since they were expelled in 1948. I am starting to doubt these people you talk to because this a strait out Lie.

 

I guess those sneaky Israelis I met there must have been making things up for no reason whatsoever. Wow, sorry, I thought they weren't lying. Stupid me.

 

Anyways, unwillingness to compromise is the biggest roadblock to peace.

 

I can't look at your sources anymore Isreal63. Our last conflict over sources ended up with two pages of arguments in which you misdirected the argument horribly after I showed how yours were biased.

[ISREAL63]

I can't look at your sources anymore Isreal63. Our last conflict over sources ended up with two pages of arguments in which you misdirected the argument horribly after I showed how yours were biased.

 

And i showed how bias yours were to.

[obfuscator]

There's no such thing as an unbiased source anyway.

[Nifflin]

I can't look at your sources anymore Isreal63. Our last conflict over sources ended up with two pages of arguments in which you misdirected the argument horribly after I showed how yours were biased.

 

And i showed how bias yours were to.

 

Here we go again.... They were from the UN and other international organizations, at least for the most part. You can't get less biased then that.

[ISREAL63]

Here we go again.... They were from the UN and other international organizations, at least for the most part. You can't get less biased then that.

 

 

Only half were, the other half were from palestinemonitor and occupiedpalestine sounds pretty bias to me.