I’m not trying to blame everything on the Arabs. The Israelis have their share of input into continuation of the conflict as well. However, the main obstacle to the settlement of the conflict has been from the very beginning, and still is, the refusal to accept existance of the Jewish state.
The issue of the Palestinian state, its continuity and sovereignty was the easiest issue to solve. It was agreed upon already in 2001 and ever since has been a basis for negotiations. According to that offer the major settlement blocks in the WB would remain in Israel, while the Palestinan state would get territoriesfrom beyond the Green Line as compensation. The settlemnts outside of the said blocks would be removed.
The two issues which were not solved and led to breakdown of the negotiations were Jerusalem and, most importantly, the Palestinian right of return into Israel. The Arabs are ready to accept the partition for the Jews, but not for the Arabs. In other words, the Jews must revoke all claims to the lands beyond the 1967 lines and get out of there, while the Arabs would never revoke their claims to a single piece of land from the river to the sea. “What ours is ours, what yours is also ours”. So, the best Arab offer so far has been the following two state solution - a Palestinian state, which must be “Judenrein” (“clean of Jews”), and a Palestinian state where Jews are allowed to live (at least until the newly formed majority “democratically” decides otherwise).
Not at all.
Somehow, there is no problem with an Italian state or with a Polish state, with the **Arab republic of Egypt or with the Syrian Arab **Republic. Or with a Palestinian state. But a Jewish state is suddenly a no-no.
There were not “denaturalized” since they were never citizens of Israel.
Yes, many of them were expelled. It was a war of mutual expulsion there – the Arabs were expelling Jews, the Jews were expelling Arabs. Again, it did not have to go this way.
It is an indication that Israel was created as a national home of the Jewish people where Jews exercise their right for independence and self-determination as a people. Again, let’s not confuse the national rights of a collective with civil rights of each individual citizen.
That “open declaration” stems from the history of the JNF, which raised money through donations with a specifically stated purpose of facilitation Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel. People who donated the money expected that it would be used to settle Jews - hence “the declaration”. However, since then times have changed; a large portion of the land acquired by the JNF since then was not paid for with the donation money. Therefore, The Israeli Attorney General and the Supreme Court have ruled that the statue is in violation of the Israeli anti-discrimination laws and cannot be implemented. Any attempt to implement it is stricken down by a court order. In addition, most of the land own by JNF was in fact not used for settlement of either Jews or Arabs, but for afforestation, park development, building water reservoirs and similar projects.
You’ve misunderstood. The non-Jewish population is not “obliged” to live their. They can live wherever they want. It is only the Jewish population that is restricted. This legislation was actually pushed for by the Arab organizations. Has something to do with protecting the rights of minorities to preserve their cultural distinction and individuality.
Again, civil rights and political freedoms as individual citizens - yes; collective national rights (self-determination etc.) - no.