30 Oct 06
will a two state solution solve the problems?
i think that it is the only current possible course of action, and the longer it is delayed the more the suspicion, injustice and hatred grows.
however, will the palestinians be happy with having only part of their homeland returned?
will the israelis ever be able to feel safe that they wouldn't be attacked?
will the wider world accept the 'solution'?
it seems to me that this is the root of much friction between the US (and the west) and the Islamic world, and as such should be given higher priority than it is.
30 Oct 06
Originally posted by london nickIsrael have been advocating a two state solution for ages, the Palestinians will not accept it.
will a two state solution solve the problems?
i think that it is the only current possible course of action, and the longer it is delayed the more the suspicion, injustice and hatred grows.
however, will the palestinians be happy with having only part of their homeland returned?
will the israelis ever be able to feel safe that they wouldn't be att ...[text shortened]... (and the west) and the Islamic world, and as such should be given higher priority than it is.
The problem seems to be that the Palestinians claim some "right" to the land as their "homeland", when in fact the Israelis occupied it long before the Palestinians did.
30 Oct 06
Originally posted by princeoforangethe palestinians did accept the two state solution, although i'm not sure what their view is now but israel building the wall on what would be palestinian land can't have helped.
Israel have been advocating a two state solution for ages, the Palestinians will not accept it.
The problem seems to be that the Palestinians claim some "right" to the land as their "homeland", when in fact the Israelis occupied it long before the Palestinians did.
the palestinians were there at the time and were disposessed and are currently stateless. therefore it is their homeland.
to suggest that historical occupation gives legitimacy is not really viable e.g. the american indians, maori etc.
what gives israel some legitimacy is that they are there now, not that they were there 2000 years ago.
30 Oct 06
Originally posted by london nickIf historical occupation does not give legitimacy then the land belongs to Israel as they are the ones that are there now.
the palestinians did accept the two state solution, although i'm not sure what their view is now but israel building the wall on what would be palestinian land can't have helped.
the palestinians were there at the time and were disposessed and are currently stateless. therefore it is their homeland.
to suggest that historical occupation gives legit ...[text shortened]... es israel some legitimacy is that they are there now, not that they were there 2000 years ago.
If historical occupation does give legitimacy then the land belongs to Israel as they were there first.
Either way, it is Israeli territory.
I know this is a largely simplistic view, but the main argument for the Palestinians is that the land is their "homeland", and this argument debunks the myth.
30 Oct 06
Originally posted by princeoforangenot really, as they have been left in limbo after losing their land within living memory.
If historical occupation does not give legitimacy then the land belongs to Israel as they are the ones that are there now.
If historical occupation does give legitimacy then the land belongs to Israel as they were there first.
Either way, it is Israeli territory.
I know this is a largely simplistic view, but the main argument for the Palestinians is that the land is their "homeland", and this argument debunks the myth.
whilst current occupation does indeed give some legitimacy, it does not mean that the original occupation was entirely legitimate, especially if you are a palestinian kicked off your land. after all if a previous owner of your house came back and claimed ownership and kicked you out on the streets you would feel injustice.
the real question is what to do now. the situation is a cause of great unrest in the area, as well as being the underlying reason for the tensions between the west and islam.
30 Oct 06
Originally posted by princeoforangeDo you feel you have a right to live where you were born?
If historical occupation does not give legitimacy then the land belongs to Israel as they are the ones that are there now.
If historical occupation does give legitimacy then the land belongs to Israel as they were there first.
Either way, it is Israeli territory.
I know this is a largely simplistic view, but the main argument for the Palestinians is that the land is their "homeland", and this argument debunks the myth.
For centuries, Palestinian Arabs have been born, lived, and died in Palestine.
Why do they have to make way for Jews born in Poland, Germany, France, the US, Russia, and even Ethiopia who want to live in a place they have always heard about but maybe visited only once or twice if at all?
30 Oct 06
Originally posted by 7ate9can't really see much of that happening any time soon, but it would certainly help things if it did!
Once Palestinians and Israeli people start jumping the fence, then the problems will soon naturally become solved. New Zealands problems were not made better, because of any fools who put efforts in to make peace between the Maori and Pakeha. They were made when people had children who were mixed in culture and saw how stupid and selfish most of the people fig ...[text shortened]... t to fix the problems between Israeli and Palestinians then support the mixed generations.....
30 Oct 06
Originally posted by spruce112358That's why the two state solution advocated by Israel and others is a good idea. The Palestinians are given rule in some areas and the Israelis in others, can't say fairer than that.
Do you feel you have a right to live where you were born?
For centuries, Palestinian Arabs have been born, lived, and died in Palestine.
Why do they have to make way for Jews born in Poland, Germany, France, the US, Russia, and even Ethiopia who want to live in a place they have always heard about but maybe visited only once or twice if at all?
30 Oct 06
Originally posted by 7ate9But why? Why should individuals intermarry with other groups for political purposes? If they want to do so then fair enough, but it is utterly reprehensible to give such people preferential treatment.
Once Palestinians and Israeli people start jumping the fence, then the problems will soon naturally become solved. New Zealands problems were not made better, because of any fools who put efforts in to make peace between the Maori and Pakeha. They were made when people had children who were mixed in culture and saw how stupid and selfish most of the people fig ...[text shortened]... t to fix the problems between Israeli and Palestinians then support the mixed generations.....
30 Oct 06
Originally posted by princeoforangeIsrael could make that happen tomorrow.
That's why the two state solution advocated by Israel and others is a good idea. The Palestinians are given rule in some areas and the Israelis in others, can't say fairer than that.
Where do you get your information?