True, when Jordan conquered the West Bank in 1948 they ethnically cleansed it of all Jewish residents. You never seem to talk about that.

approximately 40,000 Jews previously living in the Jordanian controlled West Bank (mainly in East Jerusalem and Hebron) all fled or were expelled to Israel

I wouldn't know but perhaps you can ask a Syrian refugee who now lives in your country because he was abandoned by the Western powers.

Right and might makes right.

rickyp wrote:Fate

I wouldn't know but perhaps you can ask a Syrian refugee who now lives in your country because he was abandoned by the Western powers.

There's 39,000 of them. I would guess that most would say they haven't been abandoned completely since they are now busy making new lives for themselves.
And the million accepted in Germany ... or elsewhere...
Not being willing to enter into a civil war under uncertain terms with an uncertain ally, (ISIS? Al Queda) doesn't mean the world abandoned the Syrian people.

Those nations that willingly accepted and helped refugees did themselves proud. Those nations that did not, I suppose they could be said to have abandoned the Syrians...

fate

Right and might makes right.

Hitler thought this too. And it was man kinds reaction to the horror of WWII that brought about The Geneva Conventions. The 1949 Conventions have been ratified by 196 states, including all UN member states, both UN observers the Holy See and the State of Palestine, as well as the Cook Islands.
But you don't agree with them huh?

rickyp wrote:Fate

Again, Israel always trades land for peace. If the PA actually wanted peace, they could have it. They want a peace that guarantees Israel will not have defensible borders. That Israel rejects that baseline only surprises those who don't see Israel as having a right to exist

How do the settlements contribute to Israelis security?
How do you feel about the fourth Geneva conventions? Important step in human development and international relations .... or an inconvenient scrap of paper that just gets in the way when a strong nation wants to expand its borders at the expense of its weaker neighbor?

Today, most of the world considers the two state solution necessary to peace.

And the settlements and the plans for Jerusalem are n impediment and provocations.

The 1949 Conventions have been ratified by 196 states, including all UN member states, both UN observers the Holy See and the State of Palestine, as well as the Cook Islands.
But you don't agree with them huh?

There's 39,000 of them. I would guess that most would say they haven't been abandoned completely since they are now busy making new lives for themselves.
And the million accepted in Germany ... or elsewhere...
Not being willing to enter into a civil war under uncertain terms with an uncertain ally, (ISIS? Al Queda) doesn't mean the world abandoned the Syrian people.

Those nations that willingly accepted and helped refugees did themselves proud.

If the UN were to declare that Paris, London, and Washington were under its jurisdiction and occupied cities, and then declared that any building on those cities by France, the UK, and the USA was a violation of the Geneva convention, what do you think France, the UK and the US would do?

These proposals, for instance, ignore such principles as self-determination and majority rule. They recognize the principle of a theocratic racial state and even go so far in several instances as to discriminate on grounds of religion and race...

So here's the real question. Why is the world willing to resettle Syrian and Iraqi refugees but not willing to resettle Palestinian refugees. What's the excuse of allowing 700,000 Palestinians and 4+ generations of descendants to live in refugee camps for eternity? Is the world --including your beloved UN and its 20+ Arab countries -- going to allow the Syrian and Iraqi refugees to simmer for 70+ years as a political weapon?

But not the most important provocation. The most important provocations are:

1. Years of terrorism against Israelis and Jews.
2. Arab / Palestinian failure to recognize Israel as the Jewish nation state.
3. Failure of Democracy amongst the Arab people and the Palestinians.
4. Open and/or tacit support for terrorism amongst the Palestinian leadership.
5. Continued statements that Israel will be wiped off the map by Arabs and Palestinians.
6. U.N. complicity in denying the standing of the Jerusalem in Jewish history and heritage.
7. The U.N.'s anti-Israel bias through endless one sided resolutions including the noxious notion that Zionism is racism.
8. Israeli witness of what Arab governments do to their own people.

1. I didn't post what you replied to

bbauska wrote:Is Palestine supportive of a two-state solution, RickyP? You seem to be saying that Israel should support a two-state solution, but do Palestinians?

Personally, I support a two-state solution, and hold the state responsible for the bad acts that it's citizens commit. If settlements are created in Palestine, the Israeli government should held responsible. If rockets are launched into Israel, then it could be an attack on a nation.

My suggestion is that before people post they should listen to what Israelis think and feel, especially because they are the ones sending their children into the military. Then, only after deep listening, people who do not live in Israel should choose which of the many Israeli opinions they agree with and support. Israel is a dynamic democracy with many points of view.
From what I can sense, the general Israeli consensus, including liberal Israelis who support President Obama, is that Secretary Kerry threw Israel under the bus. Yes, he gave a fiery defense of the two-state solution, but that is not what the U.N. Resolution actually said. The resolution made no distinction between settlements along border blocks, settlements on hilltops deep in disputed territory, and East Jerusalem. The Israelis felt unfairly blamed for the situation as the emphasis was on settlements and not on the actions of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Fatah, Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria. And while "friends don't let friends drive drunk," as Secretary Kerry said, Rabbi Donniel Hartman of the Hartman Institute responded, "Friends don't bring up friends for censure by the Security Council."
Something else that is indicative: Israeli Channel 2 news stopped airing the Kerry speech after a half-hour, and Channels 1 and 10 gave it even less time.
American pundits, and American Jews, keep speaking of a two-state solution. However, none of the largest Israeli political parties: Likud, Zionist Union, or Yesh Atid, believe a two-state solution is currently a viable option. Do we presume to know better than they do? Israel has tried a negotiated two-state solution (in 2001 and 2008) and unilateralism (in 2006 with Gaza). Both have met with rejection for the former and war with the latter.
So if there is no solution, the question changes: how can Israel make the current situation better and safer and work towards a more secure future? Those on the right in Israel believe the time is right to annex Judea and Samaria and to keep building in all other areas of the West Bank. They see settlements as either a religious right or as a defensive barrier to the hostile forces around them, won through legitimate defensive war. Those on the left believe it is time to separate from the Palestinians and dismantle only the hilltop settlements (about 20% of the settlements), but Israel would still retain military control over the West Bank to ensure Iranian proxies do not move in. They see hilltop settlements as a liability, not as security.
Those being the two live options (and not some other fantasy dreamed up in an American living room or think tank), I personally am much more convinced of the second option proposed by the left of dismantling the hilltop settlements but retaining military control. Building settlements deep in disputed territory appears to make life less secure for Israel, not more secure. The religious zealotry (and I am saying this as a rabbi) of some of the settlers is also very dangerous. Finally, I question what is the end goal of building more hilltop settlements amidst Arab villages: Israel cannot absorb 2.6 million Arabs with a 4.1 birthrate. Therefore, I side with the Yesh Atid and Zionist Union Israeli voices.
Siding with an Israeli voice is much different than making up your own opinion based on CNN. I would encourage everyone in the Jewish community who chimes in on this debate begin from the point of view of "how can I support Israel?" This means listening to Israelis, supporting an informed Israeli point of view, and not presuming what is best for them. Israelis have to live the consequences of how to live alongside Palestinians, not us. We need some humility.