• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

On eve of Obama-Netanyahu meet, Abbas offers Jerusalem compromise

I wish they would start talking about a three state solution instead of a two, as this would address the issues of the corridor as well as the leadership, making the corridor unnecessary, and more easily accommodating the fraction between Hamas and Fatah. Especially considering that the most influential clans in the west bank and Gaza have always been different and the fact that Palestinian identity is such a completely modern invention to begin with, I see no reason it should be written in stone that they should seek a two state solution.

With a three state solution, if the West bank proves to be sincerely interested in peace and follows suit with actions and Gaza remains a terrorist hellhole, then at least some of the Palestinians will be living in peace and Israel would only need to concentrate on Gaza.
The Three-State solution sounds attractive and seems rational, but I (and perhaps Abbas) consider it as only a temporary fix. Somewhere down the line, Gazans will throw off the Hamas yoke and seek unification with the West Bank. Accomplishing this will be much easier and safer if the legal mechanics and political machinery are already in place.
 
LOL and so what if Mitchell is monitoring the negotiations? Seriously the history of these peace talks has been one side or another saying no and then radicals on both sides start to open fire at each other. This will never ever change as long as both sides do not deal with the radicals among them, and considering Israel has a PM who easily could be called a radical, then well..

What exactly in PM Netanyahu's opinions do you find to be "radical"?
 
What exactly in PM Netanyahu's opinions do you find to be "radical"?

You just need to be able to understand Petespeak, Apoc.

In a world where Hamas is the very epitome of all things moderate and reasonable........
 
The Three-State solution sounds attractive and seems rational, but I (and perhaps Abbas) consider it as only a temporary fix. Somewhere down the line, Gazans will throw off the Hamas yoke and seek unification with the West Bank. Accomplishing this will be much easier and safer if the legal mechanics and political machinery are already in place.

Perhaps, then, the better approach should be for a two state solution that excludes Gaza.
 
Perhaps, then, the better approach should be for a two state solution that excludes Gaza.
If the exclusion is considered migratory, then yes. If the exclusion is considered permanent, then no. One must at some point in time account for a unification. It is far easier and less risky to construct a document in-toto now rather than reopening negotiations to tack on additional amendments at a later date.
 
IMO, the Palestinian proposal (assuming Al Hayat's description is accurate) is a good opening point for the Palestinian negotiating position. However, it should not be seen as something that Israel should accept as is or, failing to do that, lose the opportunity for a final settlement of the historic dispute. There will very likely be differences that need to be resolved through negotiations.

In terms of territory, my guess is that the amount of territory and use of land swaps is something that both sides would find reasonably feasible. That should not be a major sticking point.

In terms of settlement blocs, the Palestinian offer excludes two very large ones: Ma'ale Adummn and Ariel (each with nearly 40,000 residents). Given the size of those population centers, they will need to be included.

The issue of East Jerusalem will also require additional negotiation. The Palestinians appear to have taken a constructive step toward greater flexibility.

Palestinian refugees will need to relocate to the West Bank or Gaza Strip, not Israel. Silence on that matter is not encouraging. Insisting that Israel admit them would be a deal breaker.

Finally, no mention of contiguity was made. I believe the Clinton proposal that envisioned an underground tunnel that connected the West Bank and Gaza Strip would provide the most feasible mechanism for achieving contiguity. But, at least in my view, contiguity should be offered. Implementation would depend on the Palestinian Authority regaining control over the Gaza Strip. So long as the Gaza Strip remains a hostile entity, implementation of that aspect should be excluded. In other words, once the Gaza Strip joins the West Bank in having reached peace with Israel, then the Gaza Strip would enjoy the benefits of peace. Until then, the focus should be on the West Bank.
 
I have no doubt that Israel will say no and blame the Palestinian's for Israel's no. Same old story and it wont change.

Well the Palestinians already did say no to this very same agreement after the Israeli's tentatively accepted it at Taba, over the right of return issue, an issue not mentioned in the OP.
 
I wish they would start talking about a three state solution instead of a two, as this would address the issues of the corridor as well as the leadership, making the corridor unnecessary, and more easily accommodating the fraction between Hamas and Fatah. Especially considering that the most influential clans in the west bank and Gaza have always been different and the fact that Palestinian identity is such a completely modern invention to begin with, I see no reason it should be written in stone that they should seek a two state solution.

With a three state solution, if the West bank proves to be sincerely interested in peace and follows suit with actions and Gaza remains a terrorist hellhole, then at least some of the Palestinians will be living in peace and Israel would only need to concentrate on Gaza.

Not a bad idea, and Israel could offer safe transfer through Israeli territory for voluntary population shifts from Gaza to the West Bank and Hamas would be left all by their lonesome.
 
Are you going to give your reasoning for the above statements?

Yep. Jerusalem is Israel's capitol city, they should have the right to all of their capitol and not partition it.
 
If the exclusion is considered migratory, then yes. If the exclusion is considered permanent, then no. One must at some point in time account for a unification. It is far easier and less risky to construct a document in-toto now rather than reopening negotiations to tack on additional amendments at a later date.

But how do you have a Palestinian state with both the West Bank and Gaza that is contiguous in a manner that does not diminish Israel's security?
 
Yep. Jerusalem is Israel's capitol city, they should have the right to all of their capitol and not partition it.

Well, considering Palestinians have been living in Jerusalam for countless generations long before Israel's creation and the mass imagration of un-indiginous europeans, that seems unfair don't you think.:2wave:
 
Well, considering Palestinians have been living in Jerusalam for countless generations long before Israel's creation and the mass imagration of un-indiginous europeans, that seems unfair don't you think.:2wave:

Countless generations? Not so, but the Palestinian Arabs you're referring to have indeed lived there before Israel's creation.
Then again, Jews have as well, for over 3000 years.
 
Countless generations? Not so, but the Palestinian Arabs you're referring to have indeed lived there before Israel's creation.
Then again, Jews have as well, for over 3000 years.

Results of a DNA study by geneticist Ariella Oppenheim appears to match historical accounts that Arab Israelis and Palestinians,[15][16] together as the one same population, represent modern "descendants of a core population that lived in the area since prehistoric times

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palesti...estral_origins
The geneticist Ariella Oppenheim is a jew who did the study.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palesti...estral_origins
The geneticist Ariella Oppenheim is a jew who did the study.

What a deliberate misinterpretation of the study:

...Palestinian Arabs and Bedouin differed from the other Middle Eastern populations studied here, mainly in specific high-frequency Eu 10 haplotypes not found in the non-Arab groups. These chromosomes might have been introduced through migrations from the Arabian Peninsula during the last two millennia. The present study contributes to the elucidation of the complex demographic history that shaped the present-day genetic landscape in the region....

...the Y chromosomes in Palestinian Arabs and Bedouin represent, to a large extent, early lineages derived from the Neolithic inhabitants of the area and additional lineages from more-recent population movements. The early lineages are part of the common chromosome pool shared with Jews. According to our working model, the more-recent migrations were mostly from the Arabian Peninsula, as is seen in the Arab-specific Eu 10 chromosomes that include the modal haplotypes observed in Palestinians and Bedouin... The study demonstrates that the Y chromosome pool of Jews is an integral part of the genetic landscape of the region and, in particular, that Jews exhibit a high degree of genetic affinity to populations living in the north of the Fertile Crescent.

The Y Chromosome Pool of Jews as Part of the Genetic Landscape of the Middle East

The study shows that the early lineage which the Palestinians have in the region comes from an early population pool shared with the Jews and that the Palestinian and Bedouins have strong genetic Arab ties which other Middle Eastern populations in the region don't have. Not only does it prove that the Jews have a strong genetic afinity towards the region but that the Palestinians are the product of Arab invasion or in other words the only thing that makes the Palestinians genetically compatible with the region is that they are descendents of Jews.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palesti...estral_origins
The geneticist Ariella Oppenheim is a jew who did the study.

Oh no, she's a j00, that makes it an evidence even though we're speaking about one single study here and there needs to be at least some tens more of studies before it can be concluded into an evidence, oh no.

Right now it's quite clear that the majority of the Palestinians are coming from the Arab ethnicity, which is sourced in the Arab peninsula. (Around modern Saudi Arabia)
Just like the majority of the Algerians have actually came from that same Arab Peninsula after the Arab imperial conquests during its golden age.
 
Last edited:
That seems to be the case when ever a liberal wants to bash the existence of America....Why not there?


j-mac

Antisemitic Pallywood propagandists are not liberal. If they were liberal, they would not be devoting themselves to such hatred.
 
Oh no, she's a j00, that makes it an evidence even though we're speaking about one single study here and there needs to be at least some tens more of studies before it can be concluded into an evidence, oh no.

Right now it's quite clear that the majority of the Palestinians are coming from the Arab ethnicity, which is sourced in the Arab peninsula. (Around modern Saudi Arabia)
Just like the majority of the Algerians have actually came from that same Arab Peninsula after the Arab imperial conquests during its golden age.

He completely misrepresented the study, the study proves that not only do Jews have a strong genetic afinity for the region but that Palestinians have an Arab specific genetic marker which separates them from the rest of the Middle Eastern population in the region.
 
Back
Top Bottom