Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
It's been on offer, at least a couple times, no takers. Mainly because the only terms acceptable to Palestinians is there should be no Jewish state at all, you know River to the Sea and all that.
So I ask again, Given that a two state solution is not possible, which group do you suggest should inherit the land in question.
How it will be decided? and what happens to the displaced group?
You thrown this is in a couple of times now, so again help me out. Is this just your theory or do have something I can refer to?
---------- Post added at 14:06 ---------- Previous post was at 14:00 ----------
We can agree on that.
|
Post #601 in this thread, yesterday @ 09:32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
|
re your other point
Quote:
|
It's been on offer, at least a couple times, no takers. Mainly because the only terms acceptable to Palestinians is there should be no Jewish state at all
|
From the article I posted yesterday at 23:07 in reply to a previous post of yours
https://www.britannica.com/topic/two-state-solution
You keep conflating "Hamas" with "Palestinians", when in fact Fatah has a number of times taken part in Two State talks, but they keep falling apart when the Israelis set up new settlement in the West Bank and Jerusalem, in contravention of the Oslo Accords.
---------- Post added at 14:39 ---------- Previous post was at 14:37 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
The whole area could be shared between the two sides if the Palestinians weren’t so violent and objectionable.
Integration will never be possible until there is trust, which is a long way off. And if anyone thinks the Israelis are going to be bullied off their land, they have another think coming.
In the meantime, Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar is said to have been isolated in his bunker, according to Israel. Perhaps the end to this war is in sight.
|
You’re conflating "Hamas" with "Palestinians" - all Hamas are Palestinians, not all Palestinians are Hamas.