Quote from: tins on May 12, 2015, 06:53:01 AM

Quote from: u9y42 on May 12, 2015, 06:29:48 AM

I don't think the Palestinian position includes a return to the 1947 borders, but rather, to the 1967 borders (which is already, pretty much, the international consensus) - the negotiations I described above, for example (in point 2 of the large reply, just a few posts back, especially the Clinton Parameters and the negotiations at Taba), were based on this division, with a few minor adjustments to account for settlements and such (both sides agreed to this, though there were still a few other issues left to be resolved at those negotiations).

-----------------------------
[J. J. Phillips' post] I don't think Israel has any good choices. The terrorism won't stop no matter what they do. The barrier/fence/wall cut down on suicide bombings, but just led to more rocket attacks. I don't think Israel would get attacked less if they didn't respond (both militarily and by building settlements).

I doubt Israel gives 2 shits about international consensus. It's Israel's land so I doubt they care what Sudan has to say about it.

First, that was a response to jaysabi's post, hence why I mentioned the international consensus; and the international consensus isn't just Sudan - it's almost everyone. But you're right, Israel doesn't care about that, or for that matter, international law, or anything like it (while the US allows them to get away with it, anyway).

Second, it isn't Israel's land, by anyone's admission (including Israel) - on what are you basing the assertion that it is?

Quote from: u9y42 on May 09, 2015, 12:31:10 AM

Quote from: tins on May 08, 2015, 05:30:02 AM

Quote from: J. J. Phillips on April 24, 2015, 03:21:59 PM

This is an interesting point. It's always been part of the negotiation that Israeli settlers won't be allowed to stay in what becomes Palestine, and yet it seems out of the question to expel Arabs from Israel. This makes sense, of course. Arabs know they're reasonably safe in Israel and have political rights. Everyone knows that Jews who remain in the new Palestine without Israel's explicit protection will be massacred.

But think about what this implies.

Yes, that's true. How then should Israel go about giving away their land to "palestinians" for a 2-state solution knowing full well it would result in mass Jewish murders?

So, are we just supposed to pretend the occupied territories are a part of Israel now, that it can keep them or give them away as it wills? I ask this because no one recognizes that to be the case: not any international body, not any other country, and not even Israel itself - in fact, that's the position Israel's own Supreme Court has consistently maintained since 1967.

Further, as I and others have mentioned before (and you can see more details in my response above, in point 2), the Palestinian position is that they are open to the idea of land swaps, which, in effect, would translate into the most populous Israeli settlements in the West Bank being annexed by Israel, and an equitable amount of Israeli land being offered in return to the Palestinian state.

But, this is all mostly academic, of course, since Israel doesn't want the two state solution (or the one state solution), and has in fact been working very hard to prevent any such solution from ever taking place - my previous posts in this thread have paragraphs, after paragraphs detailing some of the ways they went about doing so (and providing sources where anyone can read more about it, if they are interested).

Third, I've already addressed J. J. Phillips' assertion (which I don't think is true) in several posts (J. J. Phillips had used variations of that argument before), including in the one you quoted, though you omitted that part. In short, Israel has very good choices, like: not making the situation worse by attacking and terrorizing the Palestinian population, and actually moving to form a negotiated peace deal, instead of blocking it.

Quote from: u9y42 on May 12, 2015, 06:29:48 AM

Quote from: jaysabi on May 11, 2015, 02:09:40 PM

Quote from: J. J. Phillips on April 26, 2015, 05:53:53 PM

Quote from: jaysabi on April 25, 2015, 06:21:43 PM

I agree with you for the most part, the violence and the rockets need to stop. The only thing I would add here is the question, do you believe the Israel does nothing to perpetuate hostilities? I guess specifically I mean the expansion of Jewish settlements into what both sides have at times previously recognized as land designated as part of a future Palestinian state.

I don't think Israel has any good choices. The terrorism won't stop no matter what they do. The barrier/fence/wall cut down on suicide bombings, but just led to more rocket attacks. I don't think Israel would get attacked less if they didn't respond (both militarily and by building settlements).

We've both argued our sides here. I respectfully disagree that building settlements isn't a provocation. I think militarily, Israel is provocative too, but this is a chicken-and-the-egg type of argument. Israel really doesn't have a choice but to respond militarily when they are attacked (for political reasons, moral is another question). Just as Israel could not respond militarily, Palestinians could just as easily stop firing rockets.

Palestinian rocket fire into civilian centers is wrong, and is almost certainly a war crime - but it isn't only a response to the illegal Israeli settlements. In the last point of my answer above, I described at some length what some of the realities of the occupation mean to the Palestinian population: soldiers firing on civilians, sometimes killing them; Israeli courts failing to punish those actions; house demolitions of crime suspects (collective punishment of the families living there); torture of criminals, suspects and apparently even innocent people; very heavy handed response to any protest or demonstration (use of live ammo, for example); land annexation, not only with settlements, of important resource rich areas (mostly containing water sources and farmland), but also with the wall Israel is building, military bases and outposts that displace Palestinians, Israeli controlled checkpoints inside the occupied territories, etc.; settler violence and state cover up of that violence; mass arrests; administrative detention; extra-judicial assassinations; the sanctions and blockade of Gaza, leaving the population there in a desperate situation; the attacks on Gaza, that destroy a good deal of the infrastructure and kill thousands, worsening the effects of the sanctions and blockade regime; and so on. Rocket fire might receive more attention, but it pales in comparison to Israeli actions.

And again, for you to have the right to use violence, you need to show you really have no peaceful option open to you; Israel has consistently failed here - my last two (large) posts go into considerable detail on why and how. But, even if you want to throw morality out the window, Israel should at least not use the indiscriminate Dahiya doctrine, and certainly shouldn't be telling its soldiers to fire on anything that isn't an IDF soldier, when in their periodical excursions to Gaza (which, going by the Israeli NGO Breaking the Silence, they pretty much did): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1051663.

Fourth, I don't know if you missed it, but:

Quote from: u9y42 on May 12, 2015, 06:29:48 AM

Quote from: tins on May 09, 2015, 12:57:41 AM

Quote from: u9y42 on May 09, 2015, 12:31:10 AM

the Palestinian position is that they are open to the idea of land swaps

Well of course they are, now...they should have accepted the land offered to them in '47...

Maybe; but how does that justify Israel blocking a peace deal now - 70 years later? What's the endgame here?