Palestine & israel? What do you think about that situation?

[bryant.coleman]

Here is my suggestion for lasting peace in Israel and Palestine:

1. Israel should withdraw from Gaza Strip and West Bank
2. Gaza Strip should merge with Egypt. West Bank should become independent Palestine.
3. Population Exchange: All Israelis living in West Bank should move to Israel proper, and all Arabs (including Israeli citizens) living in Israel proper should move to West Bank.
4. Jerusalem should be split in to two, with Western part going to Israel and Eastern part to Palestine.
5. International peacekeepers (only from countries which are willing to recognize Israel) should be placed on the Israel-Palestine border.

Some of my suggestions (especially #3) might seem to be outrageous. But IMO, this is the only hope for lasting peace in the region.

[1714625120]

1714625120

[1714625120]

1714625120

[BitMos]

Here is my suggestion for lasting peace in Israel and Palestine:

1. Israel should withdraw from Gaza Strip and West Bank
2. Gaza Strip should merge with Egypt. West Bank should become independent Palestine.
3. Population Exchange: All Israelis living in West Bank should move to Israel proper, and all Arabs (including Israeli citizens) living in Israel proper should move to West Bank.
4. Jerusalem should be split in to two, with Western part going to Israel and Eastern part to Palestine.
5. International peacekeepers (only from countries which are willing to recognize Israel) should be placed on the Israel-Palestine border.

Some of my suggestions (especially #3) might seem to be outrageous. But IMO, this is the only hope for lasting peace in the region.

over, shall any city is undividable. discussing is over. let's split your body in 2, let's split moskow in 2... etc etc... the rest who cares if that isn't entered in your brain by discussion it will be by you and your children in graves (for the lucky ones) the others will just rot and dry under ruins... war is raw, enjoy it, and appreciate the show it's a lot of effort, work and perseverance and most of all resilience and determination... you know after titus, and still there, there must be something .

[BitMos]

J.J. you will hate this message, but I don't care because if you see what I write about the other side, it's only fair to expose the situation in it's totality :

the hens, you know, if there were a total unified Palestine under jewish rules, aka the land of the jews, how would the hens justify the occupation of the duck lake, remember duck > hens.

and now who cares, it ain't the MAINLAND, so if a sucker does something bad in HK or where ever in the MAINLAND, expect a Titus... but you know it, and you accept it, that every few generations you get culled, and now that a few will escape and continue the scam on others people farther away... but be aware we have digitalized, everthing is recorded (what always the case in MAINLAND, just harder to find the info in those massives stacks of papers... ahhh yeah, your people didn't invent papers, only served as banker of the pope, don't forget who rules over your lives)

everyone is in, who will get the Jerusalem city, who cares, I prefer China, it's nicer, cleaner and the People are Human Beings (don't worry the others Mainlanders, just accept facts, thx for your children).

ahhh. it will be a beautiful night on the edge of city, on OUR WALL, build by the EMPIRE, it's like a giant greek real life theater... who said that Romans didn't like tragy comedy, just not the one that try to take the mind of the children with bullshit, there we wipe clean, or worst. noted subhumans. good, you learn, slowly.

[BitMos]

a quick reply, I have always been disappointed by jewish mens (you know they aren't they are like fake muslims), but ONE, I don't need to tell you his name, because in reality I don't how is mother called him. However most jewish girls, have been really kind to me, always, and never had any problem with any of them. If I could I would be freeing your from the hands of those fake jewish men and fake rabbis and co... but I think you will find and regain more by doing it yourselves, I know you can.

[BitMos]

just for the "jewish" planners, your only mistake was to not acknowledge the exponentialization of digitalization, who could have anticipate it ...

(it's a temple in china that uses lightning, the first transistor ever).  and fuck you, liers.

[BitMos]

Dear Sandmen           

I would like that you start to dispatch the sand barge ( you know to build the world      ) to sand Eilat. you know this infidels resort (where they drink alcohol and rape under age girls), because ONE AND FOREMOST THE PATH TO MEKKA WILL NOT BE STOPED BY THIS FILTH, and so my camel's friends will be able to come from Africa, fully on the sand without hurting their very soft feet. thank you very much. So yes sand the city, make it a dune... And I know you will . And it's not because I ask, and you know it. It's written, and not by me, there was no chips at the time, but to this day it came to us... so please sand me this city. they will come to the Hadja, and that's the Jihad (like or not btw). wtf in the caucasius ?!?!? the path to the hadj is clear from anywhere from the Russia Federation, but not from Egypt ? lol... Peace or Shalom .

[BitMos]

just as a last comment on the topic, because I think all is said, and recorded:

it's not because I hate a group of men, that I will steal their land or their city. however if they stand in the path of Real human beings, it may get different, if they agree or not, isn't important, as they are gonna be wiped out.

[amoebatron]

Political Zionism belongs to the 19th century - out of date and backward in thinking. Ethnicity is a delusion of the mind. The moment you give someone a 'reason' to tribalise they will run with it, and the walls will start popping up soon after. Tear down the fictional walls of ethnicity in mindspace first, and true multiculturism and integration will follow.

[J. J. Phillips]

Here is my suggestion for lasting peace in Israel and Palestine:

1. Israel should withdraw from Gaza Strip and West Bank
2. Gaza Strip should merge with Egypt. West Bank should become independent Palestine.
3. Population Exchange: All Israelis living in West Bank should move to Israel proper, and all Arabs (including Israeli citizens) living in Israel proper should move to West Bank.
4. Jerusalem should be split in to two, with Western part going to Israel and Eastern part to Palestine.
5. International peacekeepers (only from countries which are willing to recognize Israel) should be placed on the Israel-Palestine border.

Some of my suggestions (especially #3) might seem to be outrageous. But IMO, this is the only hope for lasting peace in the region.

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.

[J. J. Phillips]

Political Zionism belongs to the 19th century - out of date and backward in thinking. Ethnicity is a delusion of the mind. The moment you give someone a 'reason' to tribalise they will run with it, and the walls will start popping up soon after. Tear down the fictional walls of ethnicity in mindspace first, and true multiculturism and integration will follow.

The same case can be made that Political Islam (like that of Hamas) belongs to the 7th century. I guess this would make Political Zionism 1200 years more advanced.

[saddampbuh]

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.

which negotiations would those be? the only deal ever offered by israel was under barak's leadership and would have involved only the removal of a handful of settlers and there are now 100k more settlers living in palestinian territory then when that offer was made.

it seems out of the question to expel (more) arabs from israel because there's no equivalence to be made between people whose ancestors lived in the same villages for 100+ years and european and american colonists illegally transplanted onto land that belongs to someone else

[J. J. Phillips]

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.

which negotiations would those be? the only deal ever offered by israel was under barak's leadership and would have involved only the removal of a handful of settlers and there are now 100k more settlers living in palestinian territory then when that offer was made.

it seems out of the question to expel (more) arabs from israel because there's no equivalence to be made between people whose ancestors lived in the same villages for 100+ years and european and american colonists illegally transplanted onto land that belongs to someone else

Yes, I explicitly mentioned the 2000 deal a few times. Note that I didn't say "all Israeli settlers". The settlers that would have stayed would have been part of Israel (otherwise they'd be massacred) and some land was to be swapped to make up the difference.

Based on your last sentence, it sounds like you believe that land belongs to ethnic groups, not individuals. Is the correct? And the way to determine if the land belongs to an ethnic group is to see how many centuries they lived there? If the Israelis hold out for 200 years, would you then agree the land belongs to them?

[BitMos]

I like Palestine. Everyone I met there was kind and helpful. If you want to see for yourself stay on the Palestine side when visiting Jerusalem. The National hotel has good prices and is a nice location for walking the city.

https://nationalhotel-jerusalem.com/

I don't, I can't smoke weed while drinking fresh white wine under olive trees with Israelis people in peace. We may be arrested, tortured and jailed for indefinite periods even life-time. Without a positively asymmetrical army trained and ready to annihilate those coming to do those crimes toward us and anything that may be a "support group", it would be even stupid. I never said stupid, and sadly more than often necessary. forevermore, no.

(edit, for slow reader to read at the end, scroll down, fast, you will read otherwise, I know): if you ear a small boom on the roof, run for your life, it's gonna be louder soon (did you  ).

Political Zionism belongs to the 19th century - out of date and backward in thinking. Ethnicity is a delusion of the mind. The moment you give someone a 'reason' to tribalise they will run with it, and the walls will start popping up soon after. Tear down the fictional walls of ethnicity in mindspace first, and true multiculturism and integration will follow.

I am not sure, the problem is that my problem the usury isn't a jewish think, quite even the contrary, however anti-Semitism, or rephrased anti-anything that doesn't fit the current power of the American aristocracy is under nuclear annihilation treat, even more than often others more economically sensitive means will be chosen.

The problem is to be the enemy in the eye of the others. For example in the Temple of the Mount, located in the heart of Jerusalem, is the most important physical place in the world for the Jewish People. You can read there text if you don't believe me. So what ever the disguise of the fighting of the leading artistocrats of the occupied usa, it's important to accept 1 they shit, as death come and even trough foundation or what ever the next will certainly purse what ever they please. I know it's sound quite futile for those pretending to leave so called legacy... but opinions, information etc changed, like the relative discovery of the so called new world.

The problem is that as I answer in the first there are sometime lifestyle that incompatible. Some wants to be as far away from God as it's humanly possible (relatively it ain't that far  ), however others aim to achieve the opposite objective. Certain wants to impose their lifestyle on all, others don't want to interfere in the lifestyle of others. Certain respect... etc etc.

The rationality isn't a rational and or logical basis to take successive decision. As every decision is based on assumption and hypothesis that trough the time, refined and sometimes even totally toss aside, it's important to acknowledge the supremacy of God, and it's Messengers over all thing of the realm of before death. Do you try to sail toward God or away from?

As such there come that certain wrong doers will even interfere in the pursuit of the journey toward God of those sailing toward. As such you must understand that God is Supreme, Absolute, Out of Questioning, and it ain't a Game. By this I mean that one of the greatest treath facing those of the sailing toward that will oppose rightly so the wrong doers it is always important to accept to let it go, to those that come after (anyway).

So you understand the problem then comes from the concept of temptation and or purification. certains want to live in homogenous society. for example you may consider raping 12 years old and or then forcing them to marry to be a lifestyle compatible with your position in the universe. I don't.

Furthermore leading to your probable and proof able (it's just an example, not a solo attack ) already occurred occurrence that some in your way of life did it, I can't not join in my soul and consciousness those that will oppose this life style, using the means at the disposal of those closer to the Light.

And let me tell you, pfffffffffff. gone. theywere&itwas&wedid. And as the presence of the enemy in this journey is probable and already many time proofed, in the blood and too sudden death of many travelers of the toward due to the enemy, it's clear that the enemy is in darkness if it doesn't understand what I just write. some wanted grow old, but we recalled earlier. God willing, but the reduction of the enemy is in my opinion a good way to occupy the journey when not recalled. the earth travel fast enough in my opinion... but everything is relative, only 1 or 0?

then you are quite unicorned butterflying about your wall, behind those wall there are extermination camp. They are far from God, but to close to us. that always my opinions. happily it's quite temporary.

Here is my suggestion for lasting peace in Israel and Palestine:

1. Israel should withdraw from Gaza Strip and West Bank
2. Gaza Strip should merge with Egypt. West Bank should become independent Palestine.
3. Population Exchange: All Israelis living in West Bank should move to Israel proper, and all Arabs (including Israeli citizens) living in Israel proper should move to West Bank.
4. Jerusalem should be split in to two, with Western part going to Israel and Eastern part to Palestine.
5. International peacekeepers (only from countries which are willing to recognize Israel) should be placed on the Israel-Palestine border.

Some of my suggestions (especially #3) might seem to be outrageous. But IMO, this is the only hope for lasting peace in the region.

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.

Some time I disagree, and sometime to contradict a fact is stupid, ignorant and frankly how to acknowledge God when even a simple vulgar fact, that may change, who knows but God, isn't accepted. I think a rule of thumb is to never intervene in the Real Conflict of the Area, the One War, that predate them ALL, all have gone, but this war. Jerusalem isn't that important in this One War, the one that All that Begun it died, ohhh so long ago recalled... Stealthy, foohooo, beyond technology... a war of Faiths, and none will ever retract but then. so Shalom, but in peace, respect, for all the Prophets and the travelers too. life is a journey.

Political Zionism belongs to the 19th century - out of date and backward in thinking. Ethnicity is a delusion of the mind. The moment you give someone a 'reason' to tribalise they will run with it, and the walls will start popping up soon after. Tear down the fictional walls of ethnicity in mindspace first, and true multiculturism and integration will follow.

The same case can be made that Political Islam (like that of Hamas) belongs to the 7th century. I guess this would make Political Zionism 1200 years more advanced.

so you oppose ultra orthodox? everyone should SERVE? hmmm Romans w(h)ere never foolish, do as you want, but we pay... . and well  . Furthermore only weak (sometime rich) little kingdomlet will be framed by the conscensus of the others weaklets. I explain, ROME never saw the world as most little framed nation do. THE EMPIRE, THE WORLD, IT'S BEAUTY, WE SAW, WE CONQUERED, and then he went down , but fucking traitors pretending since long to be just, righteous, and more than all the insult pretend to be the law of man, when ONLY GOD RULES THE WAY OF THE TOWARDS. and of course it's impossible to accept to the outwards (digression), so just to say it ain't because you see a line of rock in the sand as your frontier that it is, a Legion is quite big, many and the rocks will be dust, bring water mof. .

I love Market, because even if usure is supreme, those fights are let out, but by the FINANCIAL AND MARKET SUPREMACY on certain area and the trade route necessary but not the way the people shall live in their homeland (a 24/7 miles long open pit ain't possible near the Mount of the Temple in Jerusalem, and everyone agrees, but certain bad apple.

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.

which negotiations would those be? the only deal ever offered by israel was under barak's leadership and would have involved only the removal of a handful of settlers and there are now 100k more settlers living in palestinian territory then when that offer was made.

it seems out of the question to expel (more) arabs from israel because there's no equivalence to be made between people whose ancestors lived in the same villages for 100+ years and european and american colonists illegally transplanted onto land that belongs to someone else

I tried to explain you that in the Path of the Empire false representation are pulliverized, ashed, and dusted, that all cultural relic, way of life and any other marker of identity will be gone, that submission and disintegration is the only path, in assimiliation, that not forced but wanted will be, as the light shines. In Know that the fleet of those traveling toward God is so mighty than when the enemy looks in the direction it's see only Light, and the Light of God because no fleet HOW WIDE it may have been can shade GOD...

And that's the power of ours, and we don't care if you don't agree, you know what you want, we do too. For The Claws of your Kind, wanting to impose the law of the phiraos of your days, you don't want to acknowledge God, and the Path toward. It's a shame for you, but a nice way to past time for us.

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.

which negotiations would those be? the only deal ever offered by israel was under barak's leadership and would have involved only the removal of a handful of settlers and there are now 100k more settlers living in palestinian territory then when that offer was made.

it seems out of the question to expel (more) arabs from israel because there's no equivalence to be made between people whose ancestors lived in the same villages for 100+ years and european and american colonists illegally transplanted onto land that belongs to someone else

Yes, I explicitly mentioned the 2000 deal a few times. Note that I didn't say "all Israeli settlers". The settlers that would have stayed would have been part of Israel (otherwise they'd be massacred) and some land was to be swapped to make up the difference.

Based on your last sentence, it sounds like you believe that land belongs to ethnic groups, not individuals. Is the correct? And the way to determine if the land belongs to an ethnic group is to see how many centuries they lived there? If the Israelis hold out for 200 years, would you then agree the land belongs to them?

The Servants of Cleopatra were thinking along the same lines... forward my Titus, and Constantine even saw it... so pffff. futile, even for the usurpers, the journey is funnier with  real life tragy comedy... you don't like to play Clue, 3 to 6 players by Pratt? and it's on teevee .

[saddampbuh]

Yes, I explicitly mentioned the 2000 deal a few times. Note that I didn't say "all Israeli settlers". The settlers that would have stayed would have been part of Israel (otherwise they'd be massacred) and some land was to be swapped to make up the difference.

but the settlers that would have stayed = practically all of them. you're making it sound like just a handful were going to remain and the arabs were making a fuss about nothing. here is a map of the best deal israel offered the palestinians. does it look like "It's always been part of the negotiation that Israeli settlers won't be allowed to stay in what becomes Palestine" to you?



http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/taba2001.html

Based on your last sentence, it sounds like you believe that land belongs to ethnic groups, not individuals. Is the correct? And the way to determine if the land belongs to an ethnic group is to see how many centuries they lived there? If the Israelis hold out for 200 years, would you then agree the land belongs to them?

this is like asking if apartheid had been able to hold out for another 200 years would i accept south africa now belongs to the whites. no solution is ever going to be acceptable that leaves millions of people in a state of limbo without national rights.

[J. J. Phillips]

Yes, I explicitly mentioned the 2000 deal a few times. Note that I didn't say "all Israeli settlers". The settlers that would have stayed would have been part of Israel (otherwise they'd be massacred) and some land was to be swapped to make up the difference.

but the settlers that would have stayed = practically all of them. you're making it sound like just a handful were going to remain and the arabs were making a fuss about nothing. here is a map of the best deal israel offered the palestinians. does it look like "It's always been part of the negotiation that Israeli settlers won't be allowed to stay in what becomes Palestine" to you?

I'm unclear on what the map you posted shows. In the pie chart on the side it says "White Area 6% 41 settlements, 65% of settlers" and "West Bank Brown Area 94% 87 Israeli settlements 35% of Israeli settlers". I had to stare at the map on a left for a while to decide what counts as "brown" and what counts as "white". I guess there are two different "browns" that both count as part of what would have been Palestine had the deal been accepted. And most of the settlements are in this "light brown" part and would have been abandoned. The "white" parts are small but can be found around Jerusalem and Ariel a bit north. I suppose the blue parts in these white parts are the ones that would have remained. Israel probably wanted to keep these because they are the most densely populated (based on the fact that 65% of settlers are in this small area). It's possible I'm misinterpreting the map. It took me three tries to find an interpretation that fit the statistics. Just tell me if you're reading it differently.

Well, a picture is sometimes helpful, so here's my modification of that map where I've blackened the Israeli settlements that would've been abandoned had the peace deal been accepted. Is this how you interpret it as well?



If this is correct, then it seems that land-wise most of the settlements would be gone. The settlements and settlers that remained would've been part of Israel, not part of what would have become Palestine. No Israeli settlers would've been left in what would've become Palestine. Maybe we're having trouble communicating because we interpret the phrase "become Palestine" differently. When I use it, I mean what would be the state of Palestine after such a peace deal. It's even more confusing here because the correct tense would be "would have become Palestine" since it's about a counterfactual world in which Arafat had accepted the proposal.

Based on your last sentence, it sounds like you believe that land belongs to ethnic groups, not individuals. Is the correct? And the way to determine if the land belongs to an ethnic group is to see how many centuries they lived there? If the Israelis hold out for 200 years, would you then agree the land belongs to them?

this is like asking if apartheid had been able to hold out for another 200 years would i accept south africa now belongs to the whites. no solution is ever going to be acceptable that leaves millions of people in a state of limbo without national rights.

I assume this is a response to the final question. It's hard to tell, but I think you're saying you would never have accepted South Africa "belongs to whites" and will never accept the land in Israel "belongs to Jews". Or did I misinterpret this too?

You didn't directly answer the first two questions. However, what you're saying only makes sense if someone thinks of land as belonging to ethnic groups, not individuals. Presumably that's how you see the world. In addtion, it seems like your classification of land-to-ethnicity doesn't really depend on how long they've lived there (based on your South Africa response), so I'm not sure why you mentioned the fact that Arabs had ancestors living on that land for "100s of years." Presumably it doesn't matter how long they'd been there. You classify that land as "belonging to Arabs" just like South Africa "belongs to blacks" (I guess). It's not clear to me how you decided which parts of the world belong to which ethnic groups, but I guess it's not so important. All someone needs is a map with colors and conviction of being right.

[saddampbuh]

If this is correct, then it seems that land-wise most of the settlements would be gone. The settlements and settlers that remained would've been part of Israel, not part of what would have become Palestine. No Israeli settlers would've been left in what would've become Palestine. Maybe we're having trouble communicating because we interpret the phrase "become Palestine" differently. When I use it, I mean what would be the state of Palestine after such a peace deal. It's even more confusing here because the correct tense would be "would have become Palestine" since it's about a counterfactual world in which Arafat had accepted the proposal.

strong doublespeak going on here. make peace by killing everyone else. stop illegal immigration by making it legal. take another 50% of the west bank and call it israel and there are still no israeli settlers in palestine.

most settlements might have been gone but most settlers would have remained. and the best palestinian land was to be exchanged for a few miles of israeli desert. the isolated outsposts barak offered to remove including the ones in gaza that eventually did get removed were always joke things to annoy the palestinians and present false "concessions" at negotiations to make israel look reasonable in front of world opinion

but i suppose we are talking at cross purposes. when i say palestine i mean the land over which jordan and egypt relinquished their claims in favour of the plo (not israel) 30 years ago. i base this on the 1967 borders and 242 and the principles of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the illegitimacy of occupying powers settling their civilian populations onto land they occupy for the purposes of altering demographics on the ground and annexing that land. when you say palestine you mean whatever territory happens to fall outside what israel decides it needs for its security and colonisation objectives at any given time.

I assume this is a response to the final question. It's hard to tell, but I think you're saying you would never have accepted South Africa "belongs to whites" and will never accept the land in Israel "belongs to Jews". Or did I misinterpret this too?

israel belongs to israel. land, ports and airspace outside of israel including jewish settlements and the borders with neighbouring states don't belong to israel.

You didn't directly answer the first two questions. However, what you're saying only makes sense if someone thinks of land as belonging to ethnic groups, not individuals. Presumably that's how you see the world. In addtion, it seems like your classification of land-to-ethnicity doesn't really depend on how long they've lived there (based on your South Africa response), so I'm not sure why you mentioned the fact that Arabs had ancestors living on that land for "100s of years." Presumably it doesn't matter how long they'd been there. You classify that land as "belonging to Arabs" just like South Africa "belongs to blacks" (I guess). It's not clear to me how you decided which parts of the world belong to which ethnic groups, but I guess it's not so important. All someone needs is a map with colors and conviction of being right.

its not clear to you because you don't acknowledge that everyone has the right to self determination and that international law exists.

whites living in south africa wasn't the problem. jews living in palestine in 1900 wasn't the problem. the problem was that they formed governments, took over the land and denied the natives civil and political rights. until palestinians are either granted citizenship by israel, the country under whose rule they are forced to live, or allowed to create their own state, the problem wont go away. there's no magical point in time at which the palestinians are going to become ok with the idea of being someone else's colony.

[J. J. Phillips]

Wow. It seems like we might actually understand each other's point of view now. I imagine if we sat down in a room together we could hammer out some compromise that neither one is happy with, shake hands, then have it fall through, both blame each other and end up killing each other. Just like real life! We should share a Nobel Peace Prize for our work in this thread.

[jaysabi]

Hopefully getting back to something useful, I would like to ask a few questions to get your views on them:

1) Do the Palestinians have any legitimate claim to an independent state or should the state of Palestine never exist?

2) Do Jews have the ultimate right (as in it can pre-empt all other claims) to Jerusalem? (I understand the city to be claimed by Palestinians and Israelis as a capital.) That is, does either group have a sole claim to the city, or should/can it exist as a capital of two independent nations?

3) Do you believe the expansion of Jewish settlements into what the Palestinians claim is Palestinian lands is justified? (Or do you believe Palestinians have no legitimate land claims, so the question is moot?)

4) And finally, if there should be a two-state solution, what border should Israel occupy now? Was the 1947 plan that was devised by the UN inherently flawed or biased against Israel, or was it only the Arab wars against Israel that made the original plan unworkable?

I'm just looking for brief responses initially and we can get into more color and the justification of the answers after that (if we hold different views on something). Mostly I'm asking because I'm trying to figure out what I think, but I don't know the things I don't know.

I'll try to be brief, but it's a challenge.

1a. Do the Palestinians have any legitimate claim to an independent state?

I'll answer this "no," but for somewhat technical reasons. "Legitimate" seems too related to law or legal authority, and I don't believe there's any legal authority through which the Palestinians have a "legitimate claim" to an independent state. Someone else could answer it "yes" by pointing to U.N. general assembly resolutions, but I don't accept the U.N. as any kind of legal authority. It's reasonable for Palestinians to want to have an independent state, and maybe that's more in the spirit of what you're asking. I'm skeptical that this is the primary desire of Palestinians.

So what it is the "legitimate" claim for Israel as a state then? It seems to me the same situation: Israel declared itself a state in 1948 at the end of the British Mandate, and then it was accepted as a state by the international community. It seems just as arbitrary as Palestine, which has declared itself a state and is recognized by a majority of the world, both in terms of number of governments, and a vast majority of the population represented by those governments. I'm just trying to drill down as to what the specific difference is here, on a technical "what is a state" level.

1b. Should the state of Palestine never exist?

If a state can be established that isn't regularly attacking Israel, I don't have an objection. I have serious doubts about whether such a state can live in peace with Israel. I don't think much would change if it were recognized as a state. There would still be regular attacks, responses, and recriminations.

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.

2. Do Jews have the ultimate right (as in it can pre-empt all other claims) to Jerusalem? (I understand the city to be claimed by Palestinians and Israelis as a capital.) That is, does either group have a sole claim to the city, or should/can it exist as a capital of two independent nations?

I don't think Jews have an ultimate right to Jerusalem. I can't think of any situation where I would say an ethnic or religious group has a "right" to some land. As a practical matter, Israel will not give it up. (It's as unrealistic as Turkey giving up Istanbul.) However, the deal offered in 2000 shows some Israelis are willing to give up some parts of Jerusalem to be a capital of Palestine. I'm skeptical that this would work in practice, but I have no objection to it being tried.

Ok, I was just wondering. I agree with this viewpoint.

3) Do you believe the expansion of Jewish settlements into what the Palestinians claim is Palestinian lands is justified? (Or do you believe Palestinians have no legitimate land claims, so the question is moot?)

While I don't believe the Palestinians have "legitimate" land claims, I can still try to answer the first question. The expansion of Jewish settlements into new parts of the West Bank makes the effective land area for a future Palestinian state smaller. I think this is a reasonable price the Palestinians should pay for decades of committing, encouraging and rewarding terrorism. Imagine there were a magical force field that determined the border, and that every time there were a Palestinian terrorist attack on Israel that force field expanded outward by one meter. I would consider that a good thing. I would feel differently if Palestinians discouraged terrorism and punished terrorists.

I think your analysis of the situation and the motivation of Israel is reasonable. I don't disagree with it, but I do also feel that this approach makes victims of people who aren't deserving in many cases. By lumping all Palestinians together, Israel looks to punish "them" by taking "their" land when the radicals commit violence against Israel. But the blanket use of force against "Palestinians" and not the specific individuals who commited the violence makes victims out of people who had nothing to do with the violence. I think this is where much anger comes from. And then the radicals use this as proof of how 'evil' Israel is and radicalize more people for the intifadas and the rocket campaigns. I'm not justifying the violence, but I'm saying that I don't believe the Israeli approach to it doesn't solve the problem, and actually makes it worse. It hasn't solved it for decades, and I guess at this point it only looks like it will when there are no Palestinian lands left, and then it still won't, because there will continue to be terrorist attacks.

As for the Palestinians stopping it themselves, I hardly know how they could. There are no resources in Palestine for police or courts or just general society. To the extent Palestinians have jobs, they travel to Israel for work, when they are allowed to cross the border. There are just no resources for a functioning society, and it is very easy to say "that's the price of being terrorists, because then Israel has to wall them off from everyone else" but this is also an overslimpification of what is happening (IMO). It creates victims of people who are innocent, and this creates anger and resentment, and then a radical group wants to use them as a proxy for their war against Israel, and it's easy to marshal that anger at that point.

4. And finally, if there should be a two-state solution, what border should Israel occupy now? Was the 1947 plan that was devised by the UN inherently flawed or biased against Israel, or was it only the Arab wars against Israel that made the original plan unworkable?

The peace deal offered in 2000 gives a realistic idea: something close to the 1967 borders but with land swaps to account for Jerusalem and the "facts on the ground." I don't know if the 1947 partition plan was workable in 1947, but I seriously don't think it is today. There has been too much population growth and movement since then, in addition to other issues.

This works for me. I think you're right about the original plan not being relevant today. I think the biggest impediment to peace is the radical groups in Palestine, but obviously from what I've written, I don't hold Israel blameless. I think their actions, while perfectly predictable to their strategic aims of securing their borders, also perpetuates the problem by continually stoking anger. But I also don't think politicians on either side want peace. While they wouldn't deny it if it fell on to them, their primary objective is like all other politicians: to stay in power, and they can use the anger at the other side to do that. Marshal the hatred for political gain because it's easier than trying to convince your own people to want peace instead.

[bryant.coleman]

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.

Considering the recent voting pattern of Israeli Arabs in the recent general elections, it is clear that it will be difficult for them to remain faithful to Israel, in case a future war with independent Palestine arises. Sadly, it is a naked truth that Jews and Arabs can't cohabit together peacefully. If you try to forcibly cohabit them, it will end up in something very ugly. So let's face it. Israel for the Jews, and Palestne for the Arabs. Not a single Jew should be in Palestine, and not a single Arab should be in Israel.

[J. J. Phillips]

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.

Considering the recent voting pattern of Israeli Arabs in the recent general elections, it is clear that it will be difficult for them to remain faithful to Israel, in case a future war with independent Palestine arises. Sadly, it is a naked truth that Jews and Arabs can't cohabit together peacefully. If you try to forcibly cohabit them, it will end up in something very ugly. So let's face it. Israel for the Jews, and Palestne for the Arabs. Not a single Jew should be in Palestine, and  not a single Arab should be in Palestine.

I know you meant this last "Palestine" to be "Israel". (In this case I'm sure it's a typo.) I got a good laugh out of it. Imagine the Palestinians finally get a state under the condition that both no Jews and no Arabs are allowed to live there.

I tend to agree with what you're saying though, sadly. But I can't imagine such a separation actually happening.