Which Route Should Be Taken in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict?

[Sand Dancer]

End religious hate and just get along. I don't understand the situation at all.

When both groups say the land is theirs, there is little room for compromise.

 

[LuisDantas]

what an incredibly stupid statement, how can they be foreigners in their own land, historically the jews are more the foreigners here if anyone is

There IS no such thing as land "of" some people.

Land does not beget people. Any distinction between foreigners and nationals is a purely political statement, nothing more.

 

[jbg]

Among those currently vying for full Israeli sovereignty, the accepted model is citizenship for Jews and minorities that currently fall under Israeli jurisdiction (Israeli Arabs, Druze, Circassians, etc) and the rest will be granted residency status. In other words, they will not be able to outvote the Jewish identity of the state. My personal hopes are, as I outlined in the rest of my post, is that with recieving more rights in other countries, along with efforts to abolish their refugee mentality which they have been forced to hold on to for nearly 75 years now, some of these people will also see promise in immigration to other places. Immigration will be helpful in balancing the populations.

Should this future come to pass, and we will see the dismantling of groups like the PA and Hamas and efforts towards real peace, I could envision talks to granting more rights some time farther down the line.

Thanks for starting to clarify this.

So are you saying Palestinians currently living in the West Bank and Gaza would not be citizens but just 'residents' in this one state solution?

Somehow, I can see that as only escalating the tensions. (unless there is something I'm not understanding)

Let me put a fine point on this. On November 29, 1947 the U.N. voted a partition, with much smaller borders than Israel gained in the 1949 armistice. The minute Israel declared itself independent in 1948 the surrounding Arab states invaded, for the purpose of destroying it. Israel did not consider itself bound to undefendable borders that the Arabs would not accept in peace. In 1956 and 1967 the Arabs ratcheted up tensions to the level that Israel felt that a pre-emptive invasion was necessary. The latter involved a naval blockade by Egypt, which is an act of war. Israel understandably refused to go back to the 1949 armistice lines. Now a word of explanation. The 1949 armistice lines are called the "1967 borders." I do not use that term because the Arabs did not recognize them as borders.

Another invasion occurred in October 1973. After that invasion, during negotiations that spanned 1977-1979 Israel granted Egypt a return to its 1949 Armistice Line, this time as a recognized border. The Palestinians got a measure of self-government with the 1993 Oslo Accords. "Palestine" did not live up to the first responsibility of nationhood; to suppress rebellion and violence emanating from its land. I see little alternative than Harel13's idea; residential status for "Palestinians." Sorry, fomenting 75 years of ceaseless war and losing does not end well.

And while we're at it, something I asked on another thread; why is it that only when Jews seek self-determination are "indigenous rights" questioned?

When both groups say the land is theirs, there is little room for compromise.

See above.

 

[jbg]

what an incredibly stupid statement, how can they be foreigners in their own land, historically the jews are more the foreigners here if anyone is

Are only Jews not entitled to national self-determination?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You win, you've obviously heard of de Bono's solution. A man who thought outside the box

He got covered pretty well back when I was studying teaching. Someone earlier in the thread mentioned Marmite too, which was enough of a memory prompt for me.

 

[Lyndon]

Are only Jews not entitled to national self-determination?

not when they invade someone else's country

 

[We Never Know]

State your opinion in the poll and/or in the thread.

What are the pros and cons of..
-Choice #1
-Choice #2
-Choice #3

 

[George-ananda]

I see little alternative than Harel13's idea; residential status for "Palestinians."

I see, but how do you imagine that is ever going to be accepted peacefully by Palestinians and the world?

 

[icehorse]

I think those in Gaza and Westbank object very much to Jewish rule, however since they cannot put together a stable representative government for themselves why not have a stable Islam-aligned government annex them? How about Egypt or Saudi Arabia? Perhaps this doesn't sound ideal, however I think it would be a peaceful solution and might stop a lot of evil and rumors of evil.

I haven't heard this specific idea, but I'm a fan of ideas like this.

My - somewhat similar idea - is to have Jordan and Egypt donate a little land to the Palestinians so that Israel can have the WB with no more contention. Given the millenial-old tension between these people, I think both states need to have borders as short as possible. If Israel isn't given the WB, it will always be a tactical nightmare.

 

[LuisDantas]

not when they invade someone else's country

Is that so?

How does that work for Brazilians, Australians, Englishpeople, Americans? For that matter, how does that work for the Kurds?

Come to think of it, how does that apply to Alsacians? To current day white South-Africans?

It sure looks nice on paper to say that every people deserves its own territory. Reality does not care; it is much more nuanced and does not respect arbitrary national distinctions.

 

[LuisDantas]

I haven't heard this specific idea, but I'm a fan of ideas like this.

My - somewhat similar idea - is to have Jordan and Egypt donate a little land to the Palestinians so that Israel can have the WB with no more contention. Given the millenial-old tension between these people, I think both states need to have borders as short as possible. If Israel isn't given the WB, it will always be a tactical nightmare.

I wish I could believe that would work.

I don't.

Anedoctal evidence, but a source of mine claims that to this day there are Syrian descendants that believe or at least claim that Haifa is somehow a Syrian city. If that sort of mindset is at all common, it is probably very unadvisable to attempt to establish a Islamic government of any kind in the region. It would be perceived as a step towards supremacy instead of a gesture of good will.

For all I know, there isn't any solution to the situation there that will not ultimately require removal of Islamic thought and perhaps even culture.

 

[rational experiences]

The ancient human authority said once. The Jews who assisted rebuilding temples of science and stones henges with Roman takeover historic...were not allowed back home.

Law said so.

Rome healers church a totally different reason.

A one of historic event why as they had hurt their own human families life in jeru Salem attacked again. In science agreements.

Historic the ancient first father was in his lands nation culture as life owning of one DNA type.

Mutated by star fall return science caused temple pyramid sciences historic.

You all are brothers sisters historic so act accordingly to your father's wishes.

He didn't cause genesis DNA exodus the brothers of science had.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I wish I could believe that would work.

I don't.

Anedoctal evidence, but a source of mine claims that to this day there are Syrian descendants that believe or at least claim that Haifa is somehow a Syrian city. If that sort of mindset is at all common, it is probably very unadvisable to attempt to establish a Islamic government of any kind in the region. It would be perceived as a step towards supremacy instead of a gesture of good will.

For all I know, there isn't any solution to the situation there that will not ultimately require removal of Islamic thought and perhaps even culture.

I had no idea. Attempting to establish an Islamic government would be perceived as a step towards domination?

 

[Stevicus]

State your opinion in the poll and/or in the thread.

I voted "other," because I honestly don't know what the solution is.

Plenty of solutions have been proffered, but nothing that can satisfy both sides for the long term.

Historically, the British took that territory from the Ottoman Empire, and just like a lot of former European colonies, they botched it all up when it came to drawing the boundaries between territories. I've seen maps of the original partition plan, and it seems that it was originally supposed to have been shared, but that went awry.

I've also seen proposals which would have made Jerusalem an international city, controlled by no individual nation. Control of Jerusalem seems to be a major sore point with a lot of people, as it has been for more than a millennium. I know that Jerusalem is an important city to multiple religious bodies, but I also have to wonder what God (if there is a God) would say about people fighting over a geographical location in His name. Do any of the major religions say that God will penalize or punish them if they don't have control over Jerusalem?

 

[John53]

When both groups say the land is theirs, there is little room for compromise.

They could just accept the other people... yes I know it's naive to even hope for that.

 

[icehorse]

I wish I could believe that would work.

I don't.

Anedoctal evidence, but a source of mine claims that to this day there are Syrian descendants that believe or at least claim that Haifa is somehow a Syrian city. If that sort of mindset is at all common, it is probably very unadvisable to attempt to establish a Islamic government of any kind in the region. It would be perceived as a step towards supremacy instead of a gesture of good will.

For all I know, there isn't any solution to the situation there that will not ultimately require removal of Islamic thought and perhaps even culture.

Zooming out to look at the entire ME, except for Israel, it's all fallen under Islamic control. Everywhere in the ME, it sucks to be a Christian, a Jew, or any other non-Muslim.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Could you summarize your points or what you find to be relevant in the video? I can't watch it just to respond here.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I have never gotten this type of argument. Since when is a country under any obligation to provide care and welfare and such to people who are not citizens or even residents?
People, make up your minds: Either you consider the PA and Hamas to be sovereign entities governing these people, or you consider Israel to be the only sovereign entity in this region. If the latter, your criticism is understood, but you should redirect it at the rest of the world, because nobody agrees with you..!

If someone claims that Israel would treat Palestinians well, then it makes sense to me to point out that it currently does the opposite in a lot of cases. I think it's useful to look at current policies and events as an indicator of what Israel would do if it were formally recognized as the only sovereign state in this specific region.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I voted just Israel, but I'm starting to think that maybe my views would be better represented with "other". A better solution would be for the UN to finally take some responsibility and to take apart UNRWA and to employ the same policy they use for all refugees also to the people who wish to define themselves as "Palestinians". At the same time, I expect neighboring Arab countries to grant citizenship to these people and to potential immigrants. I find the constant finger-pointing while doing absolutely nothing helpful from these entities to be tiring, somewhat childish, incredibly hypocritical and utterly pointless and unhelpful (to say the utmost least).

At this point, it would be more legitimate to have Israel and whoever will then represent these people (hopefully it's not the the corrupt PA) sit down at the negotiations table.

Before you ask why I am the one pointing fingers now, the reason is because Israel has sat at the negotiations table countless times and has offered very, very large tracts of land, land that it has never been under any legal obligation to grant, to governing entities that have only sought to destroy Israel and her people. Heck, Israel has even given up land of her own free will, without demanding anything in return. It was a very foolish action in terms of security, but that fact remains that whether you like it or not, sitting at the negotiations table has never been a problem for Israel. For other groups involved, on the other hand, the story is very different.

I think Arab countries should grant citizenship to Palestinian refugees under reasonably attainable conditions, but I also don't think Palestinians should be expected to immigrate from their homeland by default. If they wish to stay in Palestine, they should have that option, and they shouldn't be displaced just to make room for Israel to build more settlements or rule more land.

Israel has already expanded well beyond legal limits, and the newest government formed by Netanyahu comprises multiple supporters of such expansionist policies. Even if Israel gave up the illegally occupied land tomorrow, that wouldn't really be a concession; it would merely be an act of undoing decades of illegal expansion.

The abusive policies toward Palestinians that continue to this day would also need to be reformed, and I don't know how this could happen when Israeli governments keep upholding the same policies that contribute to the problem and Islamists—almost like a mirror image of Zionist extremists—make it quite clear that they see themselves as the sole owners of the land due to a perceived religious prophecy or promise of victory over those other people.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Let me put a fine point on this. On November 29, 1947 the U.N. voted a partition, with much smaller borders than Israel gained in the 1949 armistice. The minute Israel declared itself independent in 1948 the surrounding Arab states invaded, for the purpose of destroying it. Israel did not consider itself bound to undefendable borders that the Arabs would not accept in peace. In 1956 and 1967 the Arabs ratcheted up tensions to the level that Israel felt that a pre-emptive invasion was necessary. The latter involved a naval blockade by Egypt, which is an act of war. Israel understandably refused to go back to the 1949 armistice lines. Now a word of explanation. The 1949 armistice lines are called the "1967 borders." I do not use that term because the Arabs did not recognize them as borders.

Another invasion occurred in October 1973. After that invasion, during negotiations that spanned 1977-1979 Israel granted Egypt a return to its 1949 Armistice Line, this time as a recognized border. The Palestinians got a measure of self-government with the 1993 Oslo Accords. "Palestine" did not live up to the first responsibility of nationhood; to suppress rebellion and violence emanating from its land. I see little alternative than Harel13's idea; residential status for "Palestinians." Sorry, fomenting 75 years of ceaseless war and losing does not end well.

And while we're at it, something I asked on another thread; why is it that only when Jews seek self-determination are "indigenous rights" questioned?
See above.

I notice that you're again using quotation marks for "Palestine" and "Palestinians," so I have a question here that I find to be central to the subject: do you recognize Palestine as a state that should exist alongside Israel and Palestinians as people with a right to live there, or do you see Israel as the only state that should even exist in that specific part of the Middle East?

If you want Palestinians (whose national identity you're implicitly dismissing by placing the term in quotations) to live as residents under Israeli rule, a situation that has proven abusive and deeply inhumane so far, then I don't see how your position is much different from Islamists or Arab nationalists who argue that Israel shouldn't even exist and that Palestine is the sole legitimate state in the region.