Israel-Palestine: The One State Solution

quote:

---

I was just wondering if anybody else has any ideas about the viability of the one state solution. I know that it is an idealistic dream but doesn't it seem in principle the "best" outcome?

---

Its hardly idealistic, and more like another death demand. By rights, even the establishment of Jordan, the first 2-state, was a great attrocity, and perpertrated for 30 barrels of oil, when the jews were at their most helpless. Great Britian played the ultimate Judas role here.A one-state is another means of destroying Israel by overwhelming her with millions of muslims. The world should, but never has and never will, demand:The restoration of the Balfour, and Britain should be taken to task for it. Jordan is in violation of the only condition of its creation. Consider these declarations made before the world:'IT WILL BE A HISTORIC COMPROMISE TO GRANT TWO STATES IN PALESTINE - ONE FOR THE JEWS AND ONE FOR THE ARABS' - Churchill.That was hardly a compromise by britain. In fact, Britain allocated masses of lands to those who would sign oil contracts, then granted fake swampland owners perspnal possession of those lands. This is the cause of all terrorism today. The Kurds and copts, like the Jews, were forsaken - and all of these people predate islam and the Arab race.The reason this attrocity is not exposed, is because of this fact:'WE WILL NEVER SUPPORT THE RETURN IF THE JEWS TO *THEIR HOMELAND* - BECAUSE THEY REJECTED JESUS' - Pope Oh So Pious.It is also the reason the name Palestinians has been hijacked, after the Pope shook hands with Arafat in the 60's. The arabs hated that name then, exactly as they do zionists today - because it was referred exclusively to jews for 2000 years - or did the Pope forget history?Further, the demand today is not a 2-state, but a 3-state. Israel is now occupying 12% of the land originally allocated to her in the Balfour. The pretend pals are the world's least effected refugees, with more options and facilities than any other - but their agenda is hardly nore land, but the jew factor which stirs their innards, and everyone pretends not to know this blatant fact. The real refugees were the jews from Arab lands - greater than the combined arab refugees [UN archives], and another crime why their plight is not equally mentioned.The arabs are demanding the only thing they don't need, and they only thing Israel does not have: LAND.I doubt they need a new golf course.

quote:

---

The Balfour declaration makes no comment on the quantity of land to be allocated to a future Israeli national home (it doesn't even mention a state).

---

The Brits were given the mandate/caretaker role, and they established all the new arab states, including S. Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, the gulf states and jordan. None of those states had any historical realities, but it shows the British decisions are what is seen as today's middle-east. The Balfour recognises Israel's historical rights, while the other states were not recognised as historical sovereign entities: these were new inventions by the British. This renders the balfour transcendent in claims of any arab states. As I stated, the Jews, kurds and copts predate not just islam and christianity, but also the arab race per se, which began 2500 years ago.

quote:

---

The 12% value you cited must have been plucked from the air, or your citation is incorrect.

---

Do the maths: 80% [79% actually], was carved out to Jordan in '48; some 8% to Gaza; 5% to much in the west bank, including what is the birthplace of Judaism, Hebron, where lies buried all Judaism's patriachal ancestors. Nothing was plucked from my head. My point is, the Brits allocated Jordan for corrupt reasoning [oil contracts], and they should not have allocated such a vast portion after akready declaring the balfour, when this was never needed, and why hand it out to an alien S. Arabian hashemite family, instead of the arabs of Palestine? Why make the entire states alloted to arab family heads as their 'personal and private' property, as opposed states belonging to the people: do you not smell a rat here? Because they wanted their contracts signed by these heads. It is perhaps one of the greatest attrocities in modern history.Thus we have Saudi family members boasting each one has $40 Billion to his name. This regime corruption should be over-turned, and Bush should have kept these in Gitmo - they have used their money to deflect from them, and have caused 100s of 1000s of death around the world, via appointing primitive, poisonous clerics who follow their master's decrees.

quote:

---

Note that the promise is also conditional on protection of the civil and religious rights of non-Jews, a condition that has not been met.

---

That is not really a condition, but must be said in all such documents. Now you will find that no such conditions were made when states were allocated to swampland owners, which was clearly more required. Thus Israel treats the arabs better than their own regimes do. Fact. The UN & EU should be focused on the horrors of the regimes - not with Israel.

quote:

---

I don't know what "pretend pals" are. If that is what you call the indigenous Palestinians then it is hard to understand what you mean when you say that they have more options and facilities than any other group of refugees, since it is well-known that the Palestinians were betrayed by all of the Arab states who have provided them with lots of belicose propaganda but little economic or political aid in the years since the foundation of the Israeli state. I am ready to admit a great deal of anti-Israeli and indeed anti-semitic feeling amongst these refugees, which is bolstered by a sense of national humiliation as well as the appalling behaviour of the Israeli state in contemporary times.

---

I refer to them as pretend pals, because they are NOT indegenous nor palestinians - this is a great hoax, but has become a force of its own: two different people cannot be palestinians; two unrelated people cannot claim validity which is their historical homeland - one is false. This name was hijacked in '65 by Arafat, an egyptian, as a political tool - and Europe gleefully backed it - even as Europe dumped this name on Jews. What's next - muslim arab zionists?That the arab states do not help the Pretend pals, is because they wish to cause a sore elsewhere, and deflect from themselves. Here, the worst enemy of the arabs must be seen as the Europeans - who back the regimes they created, instead of taking them to task.

quote:

---

it is tasteless of you to joke that the Palestinians want a golf course - as far as I can see they want exactly what the Israelis want, access to their homeland. The Palestinian case is only the stronger since it was their golf course a few decades ago, rather than a few millenia. In any case, any right-thinking person would find the accusation that the Palestinian desire to return is as decadent as the desire for a golf course in the desert, unpalatable to say the least.

---

It is a tasteless TRUTH - and the testeless aspect comes from the unwarranted, genocidal demands made upon Israel. It is nothing short of genocide, all wrapped up in the sufferin' prtend pals, who clearly have more options than any so-called refugees not just in the world today, but in geo-history. It is a provable fact, half of the 700K arabs went and lived elsehwere, and the millions claiming this status now are not even from this region. Demadning that only arabs can return to houses they never owned legally, and even if they did, that a UN treaty is invalid because of this, is a one-sided genocide of Israel. Why stop here - what about the Jews, who were kicked out of their land by Rome - and their return barred by the church? What about the jews in europe and arab lands who lost their property: should they also demand new states?I will say this, that my views are not those of Israel or Jews, or anyone, but represents perhaps a .1% of the world. But I believe I am morally, historically and legally correct: the balfour should be restored, Britan taken to task for its past attrocities, and the name palestinians, which Israel does not want, is a shame to be cast on muslims. The restoring of the Balfour is not likely at all, but doing so would not flick a fly off a camel's tail - not as far as land held and lost for the arabs. Most of the world prefers those slants which call for the demise of Israel - and this is fronted up with false dis-hisotry, such as palestinians; another 2-state [its a 3-state!], and never do we see anyone listing israel's rights - as if these do not exist.Israel is akin to a soccer field, what's the innocent facade for? The arabs don't care about Palestine, palestinians, Jerusalem or Israel - its the Jew factor which matters here, and it is racist. I dont mince words, and my pursuit is truth. I would say, to put this in another taseteless truth: at least the nazis were honest about it.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

First, the Balfour declaration has absolutely nothing to say about the historic rights of Israel nor of any other country. Israel is not mentioned, nor is the idea of historic right, nor is the idea of statehood, nor is the idea of "recognition" of new states.

---

It does. It speaks of the 'national homeland' [a state], of the jews and zionists

quote:

---

Second, the Balfour declaration does not promise the whole of the Middle East to a future Israeli state, it supports the notion of the establishment of a future Israeli homeland in Palestine. It doesn't say where in Palestine, it doesn't say how much of Palestine.

---

I never said it referred to all of the M/E, nor did anyone. In fact, Jews were offered far more greater and richer lands in Africa and/or Australia - they refused it. The jews, unlike Europeans and the Arabs, have never stolen anyone's lands in all their 4000 year history - despite being stolen from, barred to return and dispersed among all the nations of the earth. No other peoples can claim such. But the distinguising of a part of palestine is a lie by semantics. This is affirmed by the use of false terms of a 3-state now being presented as a 2-state, and that the Muslims are saying Jews have no rights to a state, together with 100s of other historical falsehoods. You have not stated israel's rights here, and I am sure you will also over-turn the Balfour against Israel when it is for Israel. It does not make it right even if a vast multitude supports it.

quote:

---

Third, the Balfour declaration is not transcendent over anything, becuase it is an internal strategic document of the British government and not part of domestic British or international law.

---

Ok, then lets not make it transcend but equal to anything else - where is the equal declaration concerning all the Arab states - made scandalously behind closed doors, with no nations voting - do you approve such? If Israel is rejected, then all the states carved out by Britain become first negated - because these are less legitimate, by every criteria. But you are solely focused on Israel, which is a nano spec in the M/E. Oh the Sufferin Pretend pals!

quote:

---

The declaration essentially has no legal standing whatsoever. The document is merely a declaration of support from the cabinet to a Zionist banker that he can rely upon their support in his efforts to obtain a Jewish homeland.

---

Wrong! The creation of Jordan could not occur unless the balfour was ratified. It was - at the UN, first; then the carve out was made by the Brits - for 30 barrels of oil. It is an attrocity nearing in potential with the holocaust; mirculously, Israel survived the declared genocide of the arab states upon a legal established UN state: far more legally established than any arab state. You do not mention that the arab states actually voted in the UN Motion, then flaunted this result when it favoured Israel, and declared genocide. What is the UN Resolution # for the worst violation in the UN's history? It does not exist. Why not?

quote:

---

Finally, there is an obvious question about the ethical validity of Britain promising imperial territory to a third party.

---

Britain commited gross attrocities and there appears none to take that country to task. There should not have been so many arab states, and there should not have been given as personal property of Regimes, specially not by a Mandate state boasting it is *DEMOCRATIC*. There should have been kurdish, druze, copt and christian states - these predate the Arab race. As the mandate holder, britain should not have been allowed to establish states while also making oil contracts with them - this is legally criminal behaviour by virtue of no arms length and corruption of the highest order. I note the prefix of GREAT became seperated from Britain soon after.With regard the re-establishment of Israel, this was not Britain's decision, but one of historical rectitude: it was America which first introduced the Balfour provisions; it was Europe which barred it, on racist, dis-historical grounds, claiming Jews cannot return to the land Europe stole from them - because they rejected jesus. Israel never needed briton to say what the balfour says and what it does not say. Israel is accused of occupying her own ancestral homeland. And if 99% of the world wants to deny this or not admit why this is done - they have a problem, not Israel.Best thing for Arab muslims is to experience exile for once in their life times. After all, every Arab state was created via force and the displacement of others. Egypt was taken over from the copts with the assured lie from arab gangs they would protect the copts from encrouching foreigners like the greeks and persians. They ended up persecuting, masacring the copts and robbing Egypt, while being unrelated to that country. Israel did not emulate such a history. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

There are many Palestine's in Israel.

---

There are no such creatures as muslim palestinians: please tell me when was this name transferred from Jews to Muslims? Please show me any hint of any muslims in Palestine adopting this name prior to Arafat [60's]? As for a palestinian state, this infers there was such a nation or peoples: please show me anything which evidences such a historical reality: a Palestinian Muslim coin, a book, a newspaper, an independence day, a national anthem, or anything whatsoever one deems as a people, nation, state or homeland?In fact, the arab muslims hated this name exactly as they do zionists today, nor do they seek land or homes - it is only and exclusively the Jew factor which impacts here, and the world is playing dumb blonde - for the same reason. The name palestinian was used as a political tool, after Arafat and the Pope shook hands. But try and get a christian, muslim or a country hijacked by oil, the gospels, the quran and their propaganda to admit that? Today's Jerusalem Post was called The Palestinian Post 40 yaers ago - and there were no Muslim Palestinians then, or when the arab states attacked her in '48.

quote:

---

The Israel treated those who didn't flee as citizens of Israel whereas those who did were effectively exiled from their homeland.

---

Actually, this is also not correct. The so-called homes were of those who simply strayed to this land, for numerus reasons, to escape their own regimes, or crimes, or because this land was without a status ever since Rome detroyed it - a reason that Jerusalem was never the Capital of any nation the last 2000 years.What occured here was, following Briton's corruption of creating Jordan ['leave 'em fighting and devided forever' being their motto], Briton created Jordan, supposedly, to house the Arabs in Palestine {Churchill} who overwhelmed this land when Jews started to resurrect it from a malaria swamp dump [so much for the Muslim's thrid holy place!]. But only 70% of the Arabs went to Jordan, then the rest were barred, and the arabs in Jordan were suddenly called JORDANIANS - as if this was an historical people. The idea was to leave a sore isse for the 30%, intentionally leaving their kin as refugees, instead of supporting them. Jordan was the 2-state attrocity.This same thing happened in India. Two states were robbed from the Indian cntinent [Pakistan and bangladesh], supposedly to house the Muslims in India - but they never left, and are now demanding Kashmir.What should happen, but will not of its own, is Britian should be taken to task, the Balfour restored, all regimes taken to Gitmo, and Clerics and Media be under a license scheme, similar to doctors. Failing this, the world will continue in a turmoil, regardless of what happens to Israel. The issue has nothing whatsoever with Israel, Zionists or anything which Israel did. The refugee issue is only applicable to Jews from Arab lands, which number greater than the combined Arab refugees [UN Archives].If you want to insult a Muslim, call him a Palestinian. And I blame European christianity here - there is not a hope in hell this people will be forgiven when the finger of truth points their way: no JC can help them here. I am certain Jesus turning the other cheek applies to turning away from Europe - they have successfully transferred their historic nazi-like antisemitism to Muslims. From a spiritual pov, I cannot see both Christianity nor islam prevailing unless they confront their crimes of the last 60 years with the Zionists. By any measure of morality, even if the Jews were criminals or aliens from Mars, they should be given one mass of land to park themselves - and that must include Jordan also. Christians and Muslims will have to come face to face with truth one day, which is not necessarillu reflected by the UN, EU or the Islamic League.All roads do not lead to Mighty Rome.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

'IT WILL BE AN HISTORIC COMPROMISE TO GRANT TWO STATES IN PALESTINE - ONE FOR THE JEWS AND ONE FOR THE MUSLIMS' - Churchill.But I maintain that the Balfour itself speaks of nothing else but a state, and a Jewish one. Your posts do not come across as honest at all. Jordan could NOT have been created [it is a state!], unless the Balfour was first ratified, and the jews accepted it: they did, it was ratified at the UN, and the fve Arab state attacks had nothing to do with the term Palestinians, Refigees, Occupation, Zionists or any such invention being flaunted today.The truth you run from, is that both European Christianity and Muslims were against the establishment of Jews having an official state - this was and is an affront to both their scriptures. At least the Nazis were honest about it.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Israel had her land stolen from her by Rome [Europe], then barred from returning for immoral reasons:'WE WILL NEVER SUPPORT THE RETURN OF THE JEWS TO *THEIR HOAMELAND* BECAUSE THEY REJECTED JESUS' - Pope Pious.When one is displaced by force, including mass murder, and barred from returning, the time factor does not apply [Judiciary tort]. And the last time i checked, European christianity was not taken to task - despite that it murdered more innocent peoples than any other in all recorded history - even when their last two worst centuries are disregarded.Israel did not dislodge anyone, but was legally re-established via the UN, with the Islamic countries actually voting in that Motion. The creation of Jordan, the 2-state, was a great attrocity, resultant from European anti-semitism amd oil contracts.The Pretend Pals are the world's least effected refugees. The muslims dont need more land, and most of their lands should be given to the Copts and kurds - their hatred are based on recist grounds. Else let's pretend that 3 billion christians and muslims have no racist agenda against Jews, Israel is not an affront to those beliefs, and Israel's 4000 year history is transcended by new guys on the block. Or maybe the world needs another golf course on soccer-sized israel?