What's new

UK lawmakers pass symbolic motion to recognise Palestine as a state

BDforever

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
14,387
Reaction score
8
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Bangladesh
(Reuters) - British lawmakers voted in favour of recognising Palestine as a state on Monday in a move which will not alter the government's stance on the issue, but which carries symbolic value for Palestinians in their pursuit of international recognition.

Britain does not classify Palestine as a state, but says it could do so at any time if it believed it would help peace efforts between the Palestinians and Israel.

Prime Minister David Cameron abstained from the vote, which was called by an opposition lawmaker, and Cameron's spokesman earlier said that foreign policy would not be affected whatever the outcome.

However, the vote was closely watched by Palestinian and Israeli authorities who are seeking to gauge European countries' readiness to act on Palestinian hopes for unilateral recognition by U.N. member states.

The final motion, which passed by 274 votes to 12 stated: "That this House believes that the Government should recognise the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel as a contribution to securing a negotiated two-state solution."

The vote comes just as Sweden's new centre-left government is set to officially recognise Palestine, a move that has been condemned by Israel, which says an independent Palestine can only be achieved through negotiations.

source: UK lawmakers pass symbolic motion to recognise Palestine as a state| Reuters
 
The Arabs don't want a Palestinian state. Arabs/Palestinians want utter destruction of Israel and complete annihilation of all Jews. Creation of an independant Palestinian state will take away their excuse in executing their genocidal goals.

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine
The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a proposal developed by the United Nations, which recommended a partition with Economic Union of Mandatory Palestine to follow the termination of the British Mandate. On 29 November 1947, the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of the Plan as Resolution 181(II).

The resolution recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem. The Partition Plan, a four-part document attached to the resolution, provided for the termination of the Mandate, the progressive withdrawal of British armed forces and the delineation of boundaries between the two States and Jerusalem. Part I of the Plan stipulated that the Mandate would be terminated as soon as possible and the United Kingdom would withdraw no later than 1 August 1948. The new states would come into existence two months after the withdrawal, but no later than 1 October 1948. The Plan sought to address the conflicting objectives and claims of two competing movements: Arab nationalism in Palestine and Jewish nationalism, known as Zionism. The Plan also called for Economic Union between the proposed states, and for the protection of religious and minority rights.

The Plan was accepted by the Jewish public, except for its fringes, and by the Jewish Agency despite its perceived limitations. With a few exceptions, the Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan of partition in the resolution and indicated an unwillingness to accept any form of territorial division. Their reason was that it violated the principles of
national self-determination in the UN charter which granted people the right to decide their own destiny.

Immediately after adoption of the Resolution by the General Assembly, the civil war broke out. The partition plan was not implemented.

1938743270cb407a8a29ebd5fbecc9f2.jpg
UNSCOP (3 September 1947) and UN Ad Hoc Committee (25 November 1947) partition plans. The UN Ad Hoc committee proposal was voted on in the resolution.
 
Last edited:
Jews and Arabs both have massively powerful lobbies in this country. That's why we keep sitting on the fence. We can't afford to offend either.
 
The Tragic History of the Two-State Solution

211 MAY 2, 2014 3:17 PM EDT
By Jeffrey Goldberg

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry recently ignited a diplomatic conflagration after he suggested that Israel might one day find itself to be an apartheid state. (My exegesis of the controversy can be foundhere.)

It was my belief before this unfortunate comment that Kerry was a friend of Israel, and it remains my belief that he is a friend of Israel. This belief is not shared by people to my right. Based on my incoming e-mail, there are some who believe that Kerry is a latent -- or active -- anti-Semite. More reasonable people have suggested that Kerry has at least given Israelis, and friends of Israel, cause to doubt the sincerity of his publicly expressed pro-Israel sympathies. “I really don’t think friends of Israel should use the A word,” one friend of mine wrote by e-mail.

Do not fear: Kerry will not use the “A word” again, unless, of course, Israel gives him a particularly good reason to do so. A broader question remains, however. As another friend asked, “How should a liberal friend of Israel think about this current impasse, when it seems that the government in Jerusalem isn’t interested in pursuing a two-state solution?”

It is difficult to blame Kerry for expressing frustration with the Israelis (or with the Palestinians) over the current standoff. I endorse his belief that the status quo is unsustainable for Israel and a continued disaster for Palestinians. But over time I’ve noticed that Kerry and President Barack Obama often neglect to mention a true, and relevant, fact about the pursuit of peace in the Middle East: The Israelis pursued a two-state solution even before there was an Israel. The Palestinians, and their Arab advocates, have rejected each previous attempt to bring about such a solution. This does not absolve Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government of its responsibility to stop settling its citizens on the West Bank. But it does suggest something about ultimate culpability.

In the U.S., as the former Pakistani diplomat Husain Haqqani has noted, the expression “that’s history” means “that’s irrelevant.” But there is history here, and it should be recognized, not only because it informs current reality, but also because it dispels the idea that Israel has forever stood in the way of Palestinian independence.

The first time the two-state solution was proposed was in 1937. The British Peel Commission, appointed to study the root causes of Arab riots in Palestine that began the year before, recommended partitioning Palestine into two main parts -- a very large Arab part and a much smaller Jewish part. The Jews squabbled, but ultimately came to the conclusion that the Peel recommendations be accepted as the basis for further negotiations. No matter: The Arab leadership in Palestine rejected the commission’s findings out-of-hand.

Ten years later, the United Nations voted to partition Palestine into two states. In this proposal, the Arab state would have been slightly smaller than the Jewish state. The Jews accepted partition. The Arabs rejected it and launched a war against Israel upon its declaration of independence in 1948. The Arabs lost the war they initiated.

For the next 19 years, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank -- the territories that are today meant to comprise a Palestinian state -- were occupied by Egypt and Jordan. These two Arab states had the opportunity over almost two decades to establish an independent Palestinian state but didn't. In May and June of 1967, the Arab states threatened a war of annihilation against the Jewish state. Israel struck preemptively against Egypt and Syria. Jordan then attacked Israel from the West Bank. The Arabs lost this war as well, and the Israelis occupied both the West Bank and Gaza.

In the first days after the war, many Israelis were under the mistaken impression that the Arabs would sue for peace, gaining back the West Bank and Gaza in exchange for a cessation of hostilities. But the Arab League, meeting in Khartoum, Sudan, in late August 1967, declared that there would be no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel and no negotiations with Israel. A decade later, the Egyptian president, Anwar Sadat, initiated a separate peace with Israel and received for it the Sinai Peninsula, which Israel had also occupied in 1967.

In 1993, Israel decided to negotiate with the Palestine Liberation Organization. This peace track culminated in the 2000 Camp David negotiations, at which the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak, offered the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, all of Gaza and much of the West Bank. Arafat left Camp David without making a counteroffer. The Camp David offer (and later Barak offers) are shrouded in controversy, but U.S. President Bill Clinton, who presided over the talks, blamed Arafat for their collapse.

In 2005, Ariel Sharon, then the Israeli prime minister, unilaterally withdrew all Israeli soldiers and settlers from Gaza. This did not lead to bilateral negotiations, but instead to an outbreak of attacks from Gaza on Israel. Three years later, Sharon’s successor, Ehud Olmert, proposed an Israeli withdrawal from 93 percent of the West Bank (and additional land swaps with the Palestinians). The Palestinians rejected this offer as well.

The Palestinians, and their appointed (or unappointed) Arab representatives, have passed up numerous opportunities over an almost 80-year period to divide Palestine among its two native peoples, Arabs and Jews. The Israelis have done stupid and shortsighted things over the decades, but they have repeatedly sought territorial accommodation as well. It would be useful for American diplomats, and others, to acknowledge this history when they speak about current Israeli recalcitrance. It would also be smart to take into account this history when offering predictions about the future of the two-state solution.

Israel has repeatedly accepted the two state solution

In 1947, the U.N. voted to partition the British Mandate of Palestine, in light of its recognition that both Jews and Arabs had legitimate claims to the land. The proposed partition included three areas: a Jewish state, an Arab state, and an internationally administered zone in Jerusalem. The Jewish population accepted, and reaffirmed their intention to coexist peacefully with the Arabs living in the area; the Arab population refused, and responded with riots and violence.

When Israel was established half a year later, its founders officially extended their “hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and [appealed] to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help [...] for the advancement of the entire Middle East”. Those countries responded by launching a war of annihilation on the newborn state. Decades later, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas acknowledged the Arab refusal to accept the 1947 partition plan as a "mistake".

In 1967, after defending itself against another war of annihilation, the Israeli government accepted UN Resolution 242 and voted unanimously to return the vast majority of territories it had captured (the Sinai Desert, Golan Heights, Gaza Strip and West Bank) in exchange for peace. The Arab response was unequivocal: “no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it”.

In 2000, Israel made a series of two-state proposals which (contrary to popular myth) eventually included almost all of the West Bank (plus additional territory from Israel proper), the entire Gaza strip, Palestinian control over East Jerusalem, and a $30 billion solution for the Palestinian refugees. Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat not only refused – he made no counter-offer, abandoned negotiations, andimmediately began planning the Al-Aqsa Intifada. Arafat was heavily criticized for this, both by the American mediators and by fellow Arabs and Palestinians.

Those Arab countries that eventually came to accept Israel’s existence – Egypt (1979, despite widespread Arab opposition) and Jordan (1994) – signed peace treaties which have been mutually honored to this day.



“Since 1948, every time we've had something on the table we say no. Then we say yes. When we say yes, it's not on the table anymore. Then we have to deal with something less. Isn't it about time we say yes?”

- Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia
 
A two-state solution is inevitable. How long it takes is the issue.
 
They created this mess in the first place - promised the same land to both the parties and later showed them the finger.

Half of humanity's problem can be traced back to this squalor of a nation.
 
A two-state solution is inevitable. How long it takes is the issue.
Arabs will never allow the Palestinians to accept the two state solution, even if the Palestinians want it.

New Palestinian Poll Shows Hardline Views, But Some Pragmatism Too
David Pollock
June 25, 2014

New survey results show that violence is not a popular option among Palestinians and that Hamas is not benefiting from the current troubles, giving U.S. policymakers some breathing room to concentrate on more urgent crises in Iraq and Syria while backing practical steps to cool tensions.

A reliable new West Bank/Gaza public opinion survey conducted on June 15-17 -- the only such poll since the current kidnapping crisis began -- shows that Palestinian popular attitudes have hardened considerably on long-term issues of peace with Israel. Commissioned by The Washington Institute and conducted by a leading Palestinian pollster, the poll comprised face-to-face interviews with a standard random geographic probability sample of 1,200 adult Palestinians, yielding results with a 3% statistical margin of error. The responses indicate that fewer than 30% of Palestinians now support a "two-state solution": a West Bank/Gaza Palestinian state in lasting peace with Israel. At the same time, some surprising signs of short-term pragmatism emerged -- especially, and even more surprisingly, in Gaza.


TWO-STATE SOLUTION SUDDENLY A MINORITY POSITION
Regarding the longer-term, fundamental issue of a two-state solution, Palestinian public opinion has clearly taken a maximalist turn. Other recent polls, even after the collapse of the latest peace talks, showed a majority or plurality still favoring the goal of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, alongside Israel (though the numbers were gradually declining). But now, a clear majority (60% overall, including 55% in the West Bank and 68% in Gaza) say that the five-year goal "should be to work toward reclaiming all of historic Palestine, from the river to the sea."

On this key question, just 31% of West Bankers and 22% of Gazans would opt instead "to end the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza to achieve a two-state solution." And even fewer, contrary to other recent findings, pick a "one-state solution," in which "Arabs and Jews will have equal rights in one country, from the river to the sea." That is the preferred option of a mere 11% in the West Bank and 8% in Gaza.

This pattern is confirmed by other questions in the survey. For example, just one-third said that a two-state solution "should be the end of the conflict." Nearly two-thirds said "resistance should continue until all of historic Palestine is liberated." And only a third said that "it might be necessary to give up some of our claims so that our people and our children can have a better life.

Similarly, only a third said that a two-state solution would be their leadership's final goal. Instead, almost two-thirds said it would be "part of a 'program of stages,' to liberate all of historic Palestine later." This remarkable finding helps explain how a plurality or more of Palestinians can support President Mahmoud Abbas and reject a two-state solution at the same time.

BUT THE PUBLIC WANTS "POPULAR RESISTANCE," NOT VIOLENCE
Despite continuing tensions over the June 12 kidnapping of three Israeli teenagers in the West Bank and Israel's resulting intensive searches and arrests, the Palestinian public is not turning toward large-scale violence. Rather, on tactical questions of relations with Israel, respondents broadly supported a nonviolent approach. The survey did not ask specifically about the latest kidnapping, which does appear fairly popular among Palestinians judging from traditional and social media content and anecdotal evidence.

In this survey, when asked whether Hamas "should maintain a ceasefire with Israel in both Gaza and the West Bank," a majority (56%) of West Bank respondents and a remarkable 70% of Gazans said yes. Similarly, asked if Hamas should accept Abbas's position that the new unity government renounce violence against Israel, West Bankers were evenly divided, but a majority (57%) of Gazans answered in the affirmative.

Nevertheless, "popular resistance against the occupation" -- such as demonstrations, strikes, marches, mass refusals to cooperate with Israel, and the like -- was seen as having a positive impact by most respondents in both territories: 62% in the West Bank and 73% in Gaza. And in the week since the survey was completed, Israel's shooting of several Palestinians and arrest of hundreds more in the course of searching for the kidnap victims may be turning the Palestinian public in a more actively hostile direction.

Both the kidnapping and a Palestinian hunger strike in Israeli jails have also maintained public attention on the prisoner issue. Asked what Israel could do "to convince Palestinians that it really wants peace," a large plurality picked "release more Palestinian prisoners." That option far outranked the others, each in the 15-20% range: "share Jerusalem as a joint capital," "stop building in settlements beyond the security barrier," or "grant Palestinians greater freedom of movement and crack down on settler attacks."

HAMAS IS NOT GAINING POLITICAL GROUND FROM THE CRISIS
Most striking, and contrary to common misperception, Hamas is not gaining politically from the kidnapping. Asked who should be the president of Palestine in the next two years, a solid plurality in both the West Bank and Gaza named Abbas (30%) or other Fatah-affiliated leaders: Marwan Barghouti (12%), Muhammad Dahlan (10%), Rami Hamdallah (6%), Mustafa Barghouti (4%), Salam Fayyad (2%), or Mahmoud al-Aloul (1%). These findings strongly suggest that the Palestinian public as a whole has little or no desire to carry out any threats to "dissolve" the Palestinian Authority.

In stark contrast, Hamas leaders Ismail Haniyeh and Khaled Mashal rated a combined total of just 9% support in the West Bank and 15% in Gaza. Another intriguing finding is that Dahlan has significant popular support among Gazans, at 20%. Also notable is that not one of the other old-guard Fatah figures, such as Abu Ala, Nabil Shaath, or Jibril Rajoub, attracted even 1% support in either the West Bank or Gaza.

MAJORITY WANT ISRAEL TO OFFER JOB OPPORTUNITIES
Some additional and unexpected signs of short-term pragmatism showed up concerning bread-and-butter issues. Over 80% said they would "definitely" or "probably" want Israel to allow more Palestinians to work there. Around half said they would personally take "a good, high-paying job" inside Israel.

Moreover, despite narrow majority support for boycotting Israel, a larger majority said they would also like Israeli firms to offer more jobs inside the West Bank and Gaza. Nearly half said they would take such a position if available. This kind of pragmatism was particularly pronounced among the younger generation of adult Palestinians, those in the 18-to-35-year-old cohort. In a similar vein, among West Bankers in that group, more than three-quarters said they would like a new north-south highway bypassing Israeli checkpoints around Jerusalem. Among older West Bankers, that figure was somewhat lower, at around two-thirds.

DECRYING ISRAELI PRESSURE, BUT ALSO LOCAL CRIME AND CORRUPTION
As Israel continues its search for the kidnap victims, Palestinian respondents voiced widespread concern about Israeli behavior in the territories -- but also about unrelated Palestinian behavior. In the West Bank, three-quarters see a "significant problem" with "threats and intimidation from Israeli soldiers and border guards," and with "delays and restrictions at checkpoints." Somewhat fewer West Bankers, but still a majority (63%), see "threats and intimidation from Jewish settlers" as a significant problem. These figures were all a bit lower in Gaza, where Israel's presence on the ground is much less intrusive.

Yet putting those numbers in perspective is the widespread negative perception of some Palestinian behavior. Among West Bankers, 72% view "corruption by Palestinian government officials" as a major problem; among Gazans, the proportion is 66%. Similarly, 77% of West Bankers and 71% of Gazans see local crime as a significant problem.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS
These counterintuitive findings -- demonstrating that violence is not a popular option among Palestinians, and that Hamas is not benefiting from current troubles -- should give U.S. policymakers some needed breathing space to let the dust settle in this arena while concentrating on more urgent crises in Iraq and Syria. Indeed, the unexpected combination of short-term Palestinian popular pragmatism and long-term maximalism revealed by this survey suggests that U.S. policy should seriously consider abandoning all hope of a near-term, permanent Israeli-Palestinian peace deal. In its place, Washington should focus on immediate steps to lower tensions, improve practical conditions, and perhaps set the stage for more moderate attitudes and more fruitful diplomatic discussions at some later date.

David Pollock is the Kaufman Fellow at The Washington Institute and director of Fikra Forum.
 
Last edited:
Political Views of a Two-State Solution
Kenneth Stein

August 15, 2013


International organizations and various Israeli, Palestinian, and world leaders have made telling comments about the two-state concept over the past decade, providing insight into its prospects for ending the conflict.

This article examines the history of the two-state concept; to read about the recently begun Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, see PolicyWatch 2016.

The two-state solution is the most widely endorsed diplomatic idea for Israeli-Palestinian peace since the passage of UN Resolution 242 in November 1967. That resolution, which became the basis for future Arab-Israeli negotiations, enshrined the idea of acknowledging "the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

In 1947, the UN General Assembly voted to create Arab and Jewish states in British mandatory Palestine, linked by an economic union and with a special regime established for Jerusalem. The proposed size of the Arab state was to be 11,700 square kilometers (44 percent of Palestine), while the Jewish state was to encompass 14,900 sq km (56 percent), the vast majority of which comprised areas in Beersheba and the south where very few land deeds were held.

At the time, however, members of the League of Arab States and the Palestinian leadership rejected a two-state solution in favor of a federal or one-state solution with an Arab majority and a Jewish minority. And beginning in 1948, Arab states and Palestinian irregulars engaged in a war with the new Jewish state that ended with Israel controlling 20,500 sq km, or 77 percent of the land, with no new Arab state created at all. Jordan annexed 6,070 sq km (the West Bank and east Jerusalem), while Egypt took control of 390 sq km (the Gaza Strip).

Arab League members briefly established an All-Palestine Government during the war, but it never controlled any portion of Palestine, and it collapsed after only a few months due to internal Palestinian and Arab bickering. From 1949 to the June 1967 war, no Palestinian state was created in either the West Bank or Gaza; then, as a result of that war, Israel took control of both territories. In 2005, Israel withdrew from Gaza. If a Palestinian state were created in the West Bank and Gaza today, it would likely encompass around 22 percent of former mandatory Palestine -- roughly the same amount of territory that an Arab state would have held if one had been created after the 1948 war.

STATEMENTS BY KEY FIGURES
In recent years, various leaders have publicly remarked on the two-state concept, shedding light on the breadth of views regarding its prospects for ending the conflict.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, July 2013

"We all understand the goal that we're working towards: two states living side by side in peace and security...Two states because the time has come for a lasting peace." —Remarks at the opening of Israeli-Palestinian talks in Washington, July 30, 2013

U.S. President Barack Obama, March 2013

"In our discussions today, I reaffirmed to President Abbas that the United States remains committed to realizing the vision of two states, which is in the interests of the Palestinian people, and also in the national security interest of Israel, the United States, and the world. We seek an independent, a viable and contiguous Palestinian state as the homeland of the Palestinian people, alongside the Jewish State of Israel -- two nations enjoying self-determination, security and peace." —Press conference, Ramallah, March 21, 2013

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, February 2012

"It is not enough to have two states; there must be two states for two nations. I know very well that there are two ways to destroy Israel: from without and from within. This is why the two-state solution is not enough. We need to have two states for two separate nations. One for the Jewish people and one for the Palestinians...France will never recognize a Palestinian state established unilaterally and unconditionally." —Remarks to French Jewish community leaders, February 11, 2012

Russian President Vladimir Putin, June 2012

"We talked about ways of overcoming the dilemma of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. I point out here the responsible position of President Abbas and his endeavor to reach a peaceful settlement based on a two-state settlement." —Press conference with Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas, Bethlehem, June 26, 2012

Nabil Shaath, Fatah Foreign Relations Chief, July 2011

"[The French initiative] reshaped the issue of the 'Jewish state' into a formula that is also unacceptable to us -- two states for two peoples. They can describe Israel itself as a state for two peoples, but we will be a state for one people. The story of 'two states for two peoples' means that there will be a Jewish people over there and a Palestinian people here. We will never accept this -- not as part of the French initiative and not as part of the American initiative. We will not sacrifice the 1.5 million Palestinians with Israeli citizenship who live within the 1948 borders, and we will never agree to a clause preventing the Palestinian refugees from returning to their country. We will not accept this, whether the initiative is French, American, or Czechoslovakian." —Remarks on ANB Television, July 13, 2011

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, May 2011

"The peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan are vital. But they're not enough. We must also find a way to forge a lasting peace with the Palestinians. Two years ago, I publicly committed to a solution of two states for two peoples: A Palestinian state alongside the Jewish state. I am willing to make painful compromises to achieve this historic peace. As the leader of Israel, it is my responsibility to lead my people to peace." —Address to a joint session of Congress, Washington, May 24, 2011

Prime Minister Netanyahu, May 2011

"[U.S.] commitments relate to Israel not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines, which are...indefensible and which would leave major Israeli population centers in Judea and Samaria beyond those lines. Those commitments also ensure Israel's well-being as a Jewish state by making clear that Palestinian refugees will settle in a future Palestinian state rather than in Israel. Without a solution to the Palestinian refugee problem outside the borders of Israel, no territorial concession will bring peace. Equally, the Palestinians, and not just the United States, must recognize Israel as a nation state of the Jewish people, and any peace agreement with them must end all claims against Israel...The defense of Israel requires an Israeli military presence along the Jordan River." —Statement by the Israeli Prime Minister's Office, May 19, 2011

President Obama, May 2011

"The parties themselves...will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. That's what mutually agreed-upon swaps means. It is a well-known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last forty-four years. It allows the parties themselves to take account of those changes, including the new demographic realities on the ground, and the needs of both sides." —Speech at the AIPAC Policy Conference, Washington, May 22, 2011

Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal, October 2010

"We agree on the two-state solution, on a viable Palestinian state, and on Israel living in peace with all of its neighbors." —Remarks at the Arab-U.S. Policymakers Conference, Washington, October 22, 2010

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, October 2010

"We want an independent Palestinian State with East Jerusalem as its capital...a state that lives in peace with all of its neighbors, including Israel." —Press conference with Finnish president Tarja Halonen, Ramallah, October 15, 2010

EU Foreign Relations Representative Catherine Ashton, March 2010
"The parameters of a negotiated settlement are well known. A two-state solution with Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and security. Our aim is a viable State of Palestine in the West Bank including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, on the basis of the 1967 lines." —Speech before the League of Arab States, Cairo, March 15, 2010

Kuwaiti Deputy Prime Minister Muhammad al-Sabah, April 2010

"We need to bring about peace, a peace that is based on a two-state solution for an independent and viable Palestinian state with its capital, East Jerusalem, and a state that would live in peace and security with its neighbor." —Press conference with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Washington, April 30, 2010

U.S. President George W. Bush, November 2007

"In furtherance of the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, we agree to immediately launch good-faith, bilateral negotiations in order to conclude a peace treaty resolving all outstanding issues, including all core issues, without exception, as specified in previous agreements." —Speech at the Annapolis peace conference, November 27, 2007

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, September 2005

"I say these things to you because they are the essence of my Jewish consciousness, and of my belief in the eternal and unimpeachable right of the people of Israel to the Land of Israel. However, I say this here also to emphasize the immensity of the pain I feel deep in my heart at the recognition that we have to make concessions for the sake of peace between us and our Palestinian neighbors. The right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel does not mean disregarding the rights of others in the land. The Palestinians will always be our neighbors. We respect them, and have no aspirations to rule over them. They are also entitled to freedom and to a national, sovereign existence in a state of their own. I am among those who believe that it is possible to reach a fair compromise and coexistence in good neighborly relations between Jews and Arabs. However, I must emphasize one fact: There will be no compromise on the right of the State of Israel to exist as a Jewish state, with defensible borders, in full security and without threats and terrorism." —Speech at the UN General Assembly, September 15, 2005

The Quartet, April 2003

"Parties reach final and comprehensive permanent status agreement that ends the Israel-Palestinian conflict in 2005, through a settlement negotiated between the parties based on UNSCR 242, 338, and 1397, that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and includes an agreed, just, fair, and realistic solution to the refugee issue, and a negotiated resolution on the status of Jerusalem that takes into account the political and religious concerns of both sides, and protects the religious interests of Jews, Christians, and Muslims worldwide, and fulfills the vision of two states, Israel and sovereign, independent, democratic and viable Palestine, living side-by-side in peace and security." —"Roadmap" issued by the Quartet (i.e., the United States, Russia, UN, and EU), April 30, 2003

President Abbas, June 2003

"Our goal is two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. The process is the one of direct negotiations to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to resolve all the permanent status issues and end the occupation that began in 1967 under which Palestinians have suffered so much." —Remarks at the Aqaba peace summit, Jordan, June 4, 2003

President Bush, June 2002

"My vision is two states, living side by side in peace and security...The United States of America will support the creation of a Palestinian state whose borders and certain aspects of its sovereignty will be provisional until resolved as part of a final settlement in the Middle East...The United States will not support the establishment of a Palestinian state until its leaders engage in a sustained fight against the terrorists and dismantle their infrastructure...The world is prepared to help, yet ultimately these steps toward statehood depend on the Palestinian people and their leaders." —White House speech, June 24, 2002

UN Security Council Resolution 1397, March 2002
The council affirmed "a vision of a region where two States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side within secure and recognized borders," and emphasized "the need for all concerned to ensure the safety of civilians." —UNSCR 1397, adopted March 12, 2002

U.S. President Bill Clinton, January 2001

"The fact is that the people of Israel dreamed of a homeland. The dream came through; but when they came home, the land was not all vacant. Your land is also their land, it is the homeland of two people. And, therefore, there is no choice but to create two states and make the best of it." —Speech at Israel Policy Forum event, New York City, January 7, 2001

Kenneth Stein is the coauthor of Making Peace Among Arabs and Israelis (1991) and the author of Heroic Diplomacy: Sadat, Kissinger, Carter, Begin, and the Quest for Arab-Israeli Peace (1999). He teaches Middle Eastern history and politics at Emory University.

Majority of Palestinians now oppose two-state solution, new poll finds
Sixty percent of those polled, including 55 percent in West Bank and 68 percent in Gaza, reject permanent acceptance of Israel's existence.

WASHINGTON – A clear majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip oppose a two-state solution to end their struggle with Israel, according to a poll released on Wednesday.

Sixty percent of those polled, including 55% in the West Bank and 68% in Gaza, reject permanently accepting Israel’s existence and instead suggest their leaders “work toward reclaiming all of historic Palestine, from the river to the sea.”

Two-thirds of those polled support continued “resistance” against the Jewish state. Consequentially, those who say they support a two-state solution view such a move as “part of a ‘program of stages’ to liberate all of historic Palestine later.”

The survey, conducted throughout the Palestinian territories, was commissioned by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and was conducted by a leading Palestinian pollster from June 15 to June 17.

The Washington Institute characterized the poll’s results as a sudden, hardline shift within the Palestinian community. It also presented the pragmatism revealed in the minutia of the survey: 80% of Palestinians would “definitely” or “probably” be in favor of greater job opportunities in Israel, and 70% of Gazans strongly favor Hamas maintaining its cease-fire with the IDF – despite generally favoring resistance.

The institute’s scholars concluded from the report that “US policy should seriously consider abandoning all hope for now of a permanent Israeli-Palestinian peace deal,” and instead should “focus on immediate steps to lower tensions” and on improving conditions on the ground.

Direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians, brokered the United States, broke down in April after nine months of negotiations.

The State Department’s special envoy to that effort was Martin Indyk, founder of the Washington Institute.
 
Last edited:
Throwing a Bone !!! is what I call this now

Earlier in year war crimes were committed by air raids yet no action now , all sudden people get into action
 
Last edited:
They created this mess in the first place - promised the same land to both the parties and later showed them the finger.

Half of humanity's problem can be traced back to this squalor of a nation.

Yeah because it was always so peaceful there and this wasnt inevitable was it? two groups of religious people who make claims of land based on ancient fiction, the same fiction which has led to the death of uncountable millions throughout history. The UK may have made a decision back then but tensions always existed and always would, you think muslims and jews forget about what is basically cornerstones of their religion, the holy land and all that bs.

This will never end, the UK creating states makes no difference, because of these two groups of peoples devotions to thousand year old books this will only ever end when one group ceases to exist or the world is brought to a demise. Israel/Palestine it makes no difference, religion in the modern context is extreme and there is nothing religious people love more than ancient stories that cement their peoples supremacy, it only ends badly regardless of who/why/when they got there.
 
Back
Top Bottom