Obama urges future Palestinian state be based on '67 borders
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
Definitely. You'll never get re-elected by upsetting that special-interest group. He's done for.
They would be better off starting negotiations from the 1947 map (and worded description. Think how much rent would be coming in just from the illegal houses and tenants. !00% occupancy for the 'expected life of the house, say 50 years= mucho $$$$ Those maps also hold the mineral rights, on-shore and off-shore, again the 1947 borders are much better for Gaza and the West Bank. when looking at the financial aspect of any proposal.
No, they would be better off negotiating from today's map if you don't want to see the whole Mid-East blow up. What is happening now is nothing compared to trying to force Israel back to the 1967 borders. (The Golan Heights and Jerusalem are not negotiable.)
No, a one state solution is the ideal way to bring about peace. A two state configuration is nothing more than segregation.
If Israel ever wants some sort of peace in their area of the world, they will have to give up some land they took.
Based on what was said in the CTV report:
Israel's PM rejects withdrawal plan to 1967 borders - CTV News
"The U.S., the international community and even past Israeli governments have endorsed a settlement based on the 1967 lines"
^ Sounds reasonable to me and it'd probably start paving a road towards some sort of peace..... but it seems that every time someone tries to suggest a certain action to be taken towards ending this conflict, the government of Israel seems to block them at every turn.
I'd almost suspect that they want to keep fighting.
At least the US finally has a president that can use some common sense. Good on Obama for picking a position on this subject and voicing it.
Based on what was said in the CTV report:
Israel's PM rejects withdrawal plan to 1967 borders - CTV News
"The U.S., the international community and even past Israeli governments have endorsed a settlement based on the 1967 lines"
^ Sounds reasonable to me and it'd probably start paving a road towards some sort of peace..... but it seems that every time someone tries to suggest a certain action to be taken towards ending this conflict, the government of Israel seems to block them at every turn.
I'd almost suspect that they want to keep fighting.
At least the US finally has a president that can use some common sense. Good on Obama for picking a position on this subject and voicing it.
I'd prefer a one-state solution, but if a two-state solution is an improvement over now, and is the path of least resistance, then why not go for that first, and then the two sovereign states could discuss a mutually agreeable federation later should they wish.
Why not, they were Palestinian before the league of nations forced the state of Israel upon the world and the middle east. I would support negotiating from the pre 1947 map.
Yep, look at all the peace it has brought so far!!!! How a bout one Palestinian state?
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher
No, a one state solution is the ideal way to bring about peace. A two state configuration is nothing more than segregation.Yep, look at all the peace it has brought so far!!!! How a bout one Palestinian state?
No one state, no peace. Segregation has not brought about peace and it never will. Integration is the answer and we will have that with a one state solution.
So answer the question, if you think a one state solution is the only answer would you support one state of Palestine??
I think I've answered that already but will do so again:
A one state solution encompassing all Israelis and Palestinians. I do not want any segregation into two states as that will always create conflict.
A one state solution encompassing all Israelis and Palestinians. I do not want any segregation into two states as that will always create conflict.
My question is whether you want one state of Israel or one state of Palestine? Or do you not care which one as long as it is one state?
What about a one-state solution between Canada and the US?
Just askin'.
To be fair, symbolism aside, it would be the same seeing except in name seeing that it would comprise the same voters.
The UN and international community only recognizes Israel as a sovereign nation. There should be no other as it would only encourage segregation. By fully integrating the Palestinian population it would make that country a true democracy and bring about peace.
Yeah, thats about what I thought. Why consider that before the league of nations and the west, particularly the US, imposed the state of Israel upon the region there was a sovereign state of Palestine. Why consider putting the borders and states back to where they were before 1947 and letting the Jews integrate within Palestine? Is that because Israel was only established for the US to secure a foothold in the region and have an ally there as an excuse to protect the supply of oil?