The call for a two-state solution arose as yet another attempt to solve the conflict between Palestinian Arabs and Jews. What is it about that fact you cannot accept.
"You and the other guy can believe whatever you'd like. The question remains that when Jordan annexed the West Bank in 1948, where were the cries for a 2 state solution, where were the people claiming to be Palestinians, then?"
The British failed to come out of their mandate with two independent countries. Zionist Jews, of course, always fought against the formation of an independent Palestinian state.
two-state solution Israeli-Palestinian history [...]
Recent News Sep. 22, 2022, 4:54 PM ET - In his speech to the UN General Assembly, Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid took a hard stance against Iran's nuclear program but called for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Speaking just weeks before elections in Israel, Lapid's speech also hailed Palestinian citizens of Israel as "partners in life," and noted their importance in Israeli society.
two-state solution, proposed framework for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by establishing two states for two peoples: Israel for the Jewish people and Palestine for the Palestinian people. In 1993 the Israeli government and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) agreed on a plan to implement a two-state solution as part of the Oslo Accords, leading to the establishment of the Palestinian Authority (PA).
Historical background and basis
The two-state solution proposed by the Oslo Accords was born out of a series of historical events. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Jews and Arabs both claimed the right to self-determination in historical Palestine. A first attempt at partitioning the land in 1948 resulted in an Israeli state but no Palestinian state, and the West Bank and Gaza Strip fell under Jordanian and Egyptian rule, respectively. In the Six-Day War of 1967, Israel captured and occupied the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and other Arab territories, which in the aftermath led to the idea that Israel would exchange land it had captured for peace with its Arab neighbours, including, eventually, the Palestinians.
Why, or rather how, do you arrive at the idea that Palestinians were not claiming to be Palestinians before and during 1948. Who was fighting the Jews in Palestine before other Arab countries got involved. I know you've seen it all before. Humor me. I'm still trying to get it all absolutely straight. And i forget some history too. So
The Arab-Israeli War of 1948
The Arab-Israeli War of 1948 broke out when five Arab nations invaded territory in the former Palestinian mandate immediately following the announcement of the independence of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948. In 1947, and again on May 14, 1948, the United States had offered de facto recognition of the Israeli Provisional Government, but during the war, the United States maintained an arms embargo against all belligerents. Raising the Flag signified the Conclusion of the Conflict
On November 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 181 (also known as the Partition Resolution .. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/creation-israel ) that would divide Great Britain’s former Palestinian mandate into Jewish and Arab states in May 1948. Under the resolution, the area of religious significance surrounding Jerusalem would remain under international control administered by the United Nations. The Palestinian Arabs refused to recognize this arrangement, which they regarded as favorable to the Jews and unfair to the Arab population that would remain in Jewish territory under the partition. The United States sought a middle way by supporting the United Nations resolution, but also encouraging negotiations between Arabs and Jews in the Middle East. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/arab-israeli-war
Again your, "You and the other guy can believe whatever you'd like. The question remains that when Jordan annexed the West Bank in 1948, where were the cries for a 2 state solution, where were the people claiming to be Palestinians, then?"
There were always Palestinian claims to a fair portion of the British Mandate. There were always Palestinians claiming to be Palestinians.
British Mandate for Palestine By Avital Ginat Last updated 07 December 2018 The British Mandate for Palestine (1918-1948) was the outcome of several factors: the British occupation of territories previously ruled by the Ottoman Empire, the peace treaties that brought the First World War to an end, and the principle of self-determination that emerged after the war. [...] Another major Arab revolt, in 1936, was triggered by an economic crisis, Jewish mass immigration, which had increased in 1933 after Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) came to power in Germany, and the continuation of Jewish land purchases. This revolt had two phases. The first started on April 1936 with a general strike by the Arab community and violent attacks on British and Jewish targets. It lasted until October 1936, when diplomatic efforts involving other Arab countries led to a ceasefire. A Royal Commission of Inquiry headed by William Peel, 1st Earl Peel (1867-1937 .. https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/index/names/104124441X ) was established in 1937. It concluded that Palestine had two distinct societies with irreconcilable political demands, thus making it necessary to partition the land. The Arab rejection of the Peel conclusions led to the second phase in September 1937, when the Arab Higher Committee declined these recommendations and the revolt broke out again. The revolt then succumbed to internal struggles within Arab society. Additionally, Britain’s heavy-handed response to the revolt was marked by violence and destruction. Estimates of the number of Arabs killed by the British armed forces and police vary between 2,000 and 5,000 people. Following the riots, the mandate government dissolved the Arab Higher Committee and declared it an illegal body.
In response to the revolt, the British government issued the White Paper of 1939. These events weakened Arab society to such an extent that after World War II it failed to recover and did not attain political achievements in the wake of the 1948 war.
Britain's Retreat from Palestine
The White Paper, issued in 1939, stated that Palestine should be a bi-national state, inhabited by both Arabs and Jews. Jewish immigration would be limited for five years, and any immigration required Arab consent. In addition, it called for restrictions on land purchases by Jews. British authorities set a limit on Jewish immigration to Palestine, but Hitler’s rise to power increased the number of people looking for refuge from Nazi Germany. Yet their options were limited due to increasing restrictions and closed borders. Zionist organizations dealt with the situation by organizing illegal immigration to Palestine, which continued until British rule ended.
The negative publicity caused by the deteriorating situation in Palestine and the violence erupting on both sides made the mandate increasingly unpopular in Britain and was instrumental in the government’s announcement of its intention to terminate the mandate and return the Palestine question to the United Nations (UN). After the UN General Assembly adopted the resolution to partition Palestine on 29 November 1947, Britain announced the termination of its Mandate for Palestine, which became effective on 15 May 1948. At midnight on 14 May 1948, the State of Israel declared its independence.
Conclusion
The British Mandate for Palestine was an outcome of the First World War, reflecting the collapse of pre-war empires and the emergence of nations demanding self-determination. The Middle East as we know it today still reflects and is influenced by the arbitrary partitions enacted by the war’s victors.
Twenty years ago, 60 percent of Jewish Israeli children attended secular schools. Today, that number is 40 percent, and the trend shows no sign of leveling off.
With more religious education, it’s perhaps not surprising that Israel’s best demographers foresee an increasingly religious Israel. The Haredim will account .. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/150670#.U2vbVvldWhE .. for 20 percent of the population by 2030, and between 27 percent and 41 percent in 2059, according to Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics. [...] A changing army
Allied to the increasing propensity to religiosity among Israeli Jews are trends in the composition of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), a change that raises questions about the reliability of the army.
The IDF is increasingly a religious army, recruited from the settler community in the West Bank.
The rate of settler recruitment to combat units in the IDF is 80 percent higher than the rest of country. In 2011, two-thirds of draftees from West Bank settlements served in combat units, compared with 40 percent from the rest of country.
In some combat units, Orthodox men now make up 50 percent of new combat officers – four times their share in the population. There are now entire units of religious combat soldiers, many of them based in West Bank settlements where an implicit alliance between some settler communities and the IDF are commonplace .. http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/the-ultra-orthodox-are-changing-the-face-of-the-idf-1.396302 . These religious combat soldiers answer to hard-line rabbis who call for the establishment of a greater Israel that includes the West Bank. These changes are paralleled by a decline in the number of combat soldiers and officers coming from secular families.
Putting an agreement into practice [...] The role of these rabbis in controlling the army raises the question: if a two-state agreement miraculously emerged out of the current rampant violence, what are the realities of putting it into place?
Could the IDF be relied upon to evacuate Jerusalem and West Bank settlements – as they did in Gaza in 2005 .. http://www.democracynow.org/2005/8/17/israel_begins_forced_removal_of_jewish – with battalion commanders who are increasingly religious? [...] Right now, the weight of uncertainties surrounding a two-state solution seems to outweigh the benefits.
The future? There will be no mitigation of present trends. With every passing year using the IDF to evacuate settlers will become more problematic, and evacuation less likely.
GR, you ignore Lieberman who is secularist. The point tinner made is more on the mark than your insistence that my ""it suggests a theocratic (Perry,Palin, puffstash) type effort is not real popular much anywhere .. "" was so off the mark for you to simply dump on it .. the theocracy, or not, battle in Israel is in fact much as the one in the USA .. the articles below i see as supporting that position .. We must stop Israel from becoming a theocracy http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=97933048
Destroying the Commons How the Magna Carta Became a Minor Carta .. speck .. The record of the terrorist list is of some interest. For example, in 1988 the Reagan administration declared Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress to be one of the world’s “more notorious terrorist groups,” so that Reagan could continue his support for the Apartheid regime and its murderous depredations in South Africa and in neighboring countries, as part of his “war on terror.” Twenty years later Mandela was finally removed [ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7484517.stm ] from the terrorist list, and can now travel to the U.S. without a special waiver.
Another interesting case is Saddam Hussein, removed from the terrorist list in 1982 so that the Reagan administration could provide him with support for his invasion of Iran. The support continued well after the war ended. In 1989, President Bush I even invited Iraqi nuclear engineers to the U.S. for advanced training in weapons production -- more information that must be kept from the eyes of the “ignorant and meddlesome outsiders.”
One of the ugliest examples of the use of the terrorist list has to do with the tortured people of Somalia. Immediately after September 11th, the United States closed down the Somali charitable network Al-Barakaat on grounds that it was financing terror. This achievement was hailed one of the great successes of the "war on terror." In contrast, Washington's withdrawal of its charges as without merit a year later aroused little notice. http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=77869081
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
