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

[Debater Slayer]

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

The subject is so complicated as to render a brief answer insufficient, but one thing I fully believe is that kicking out all Israelis or all Palestinians out of the land in which they were born and spent their whole lives would be fundamentally inhumane and a non-starter for peace negotiations. I have no definite answer as to where the borders should be drawn in the case of a two-state solution, but I lean toward it as the fairest and most ethical option.

 

[Debater Slayer]

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.

This seems to me pretty similar to the argument that if Ukraine wants peace, then it must give up Crimea and other annexed land to Russia. It sets a dangerous precedent and merely acquiesces to military aggression and violations of international law.

I have no doubt that many of the details of how to successfully implement a two-state solution would be colossally difficult to work out, but I think the notion that one state should give up land to an aggressor for the sake of "peace" is doomed to fail, and for good reason.

 

[icehorse]

This seems to me pretty similar to the argument that if Ukraine wants peace, then it must give up Crimea and other annexed land to Russia. It sets a dangerous precedent and merely acquiesces to military aggression and violations of international law.

I have no doubt that many of the details of how to successfully implement a two-state solution would be colossally difficult to work out, but I think the notion that one state should give up land to an aggressor for the sake of "peace" is doomed to fail, and for good reason.

I'm not seeing the similarities you're seeing. Can you add some details to that idea?

 

[Debater Slayer]

I'm not seeing the similarities you're seeing. Can you add some details to that idea?

Israeli occupation of the West Bank is strongly disputed under international law, and arguing that Palestine should simply give up the region to Israel in that context is similar to the situation with Crimea because the latter is also illegally annexed by a country that has no legal right to it.

Commission of Inquiry finds that the Israeli occupation is unlawful under international law

Israeli annexation of parts of the Palestinian West Bank would break international law – UN experts call on the international community to ensure accountability

Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory illegal: UN rights commission

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

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

Multiple times Mr Beat explains how conditions are better in Israel than Palestine. Access to clean drinking water, electricity, food, things that are lacking in the other country. Therefore, Manifest Destiny.

 

[LuisDantas]

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

By me, certainly. Not ten years ago, but definitely now.

Of course, that is immaterial. What truly counts is how the people who have stakes there, mainly the residents, feel or would.

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

And yet being Muslims is not all that helpful for peace, as you well know.

I think that it is a bit oversimplist and naive to expect the simple existence of a Islam-friendly (or worse, fully Islamic) state in the region to be of significant help.

Arguably, that was what existed the day Israel was inaugurated back in 1947. And that situation was apparently intolerable to their neighbors to the point that they immediately waged war. Looks more like an aggravation than any sort of appeasament to me.

 

[LuisDantas]

Multiple times Mr Beat explains how conditions are better in Israel than Palestine. Access to clean drinking water, electricity, food, things that are lacking in the other country. Therefore, Manifest Destiny.

Uh, what?

Are you truly proposing Manifest Destiny as a factor in this matter?

Really?

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Uh, what?

Are you truly proposing Manifest Destiny as a factor in this matter?

Really?

Not directly, but Israel is several times wealthier and more secure as a nation than Palestine. If someone takes care of their land, and someone else doesn't, but that person takes care of that land, it is a Wisconsin law that the person who takes care of that land is now its owner. Manifest Destiny.

 

[icehorse]

Israeli occupation of the West Bank is strongly disputed under international law, and arguing that Palestine should simply give up the region to Israel in that context is similar to the situation with Crimea because the latter is also illegally annexed by a country that has no legal right to it.

Two points: First, recall that my suggestion included having Jordan and Egypt give some land to the Palestinians.

Second, I think the UN has been very inconsistent throughout the history of this conflict. So inconsistent that your argument feels like an appeal to (a weak) authority. I think this situation is massively complex, and it's an oversimplification to say the WB is illegally annexed. I think in some contexts, perhaps, but there are so many overlapping contexts to consider here. IMO

 

[icehorse]

And yet being Muslims is not all that helpful for peace, as you well know.

I think that it is a bit oversimplist and naive to expect the simple existence of a Islam-friendly (or worse, fully Islamic) state in the region to be of significant help.

Arguably, that was what existed the day Israel was inaugurated back in 1947. And that situation was apparently intolerable to their neighbors to the point that they immediately waged war. Looks more like an aggravation than any sort of appeasament to me.

Sorry, I'm struggling to understand how the middle paragraph (bolded), fits in with the paragaphs before or after?

To be clear, what "islam-friendly state" are you talking about? Israel is surrounded by such states already.

 

[LuisDantas]

Not directly, but Israel is several times wealthier and more secure as a nation than Palestine. If someone takes care of their land, and someone else doesn't, but that person takes care of that land, it is a Wisconsin law that the person who takes care of that land is now its owner. Manifest Destiny.

Uh. Let's just say that I neither agree nor sympathise nor stand convinced that the idea deserves any respect.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Two points: First, recall that my suggestion included having Jordan and Egypt give some land to the Palestinians.

Second, I think the UN has been very inconsistent throughout the history of this conflict. So inconsistent that your argument feels like an appeal to (a weak) authority. I think this situation is massively complex, and it's an oversimplification to say the WB is illegally annexed. I think in some contexts, perhaps, but there are so many overlapping contexts to consider here. IMO

I think it's impractical to suggest to countries that they should give up some land within their territory in order to resolve a conflict where one side has used military aggression to annex land belonging to their neighbor. I would even expect it to generate further hostility, which would be far from surprising to me.

As for the second point, without international law, we are left to the starkly varying and conflicting claims to the land based on different religious, historical, and geopolitical perspectives. I highly doubt the conflict could be resolved without a third party or parties acting as brokers based on a set of standards such as international law.

I have to ask a question here for clarity, though: is your position on this subject based on any perception that Islam—not Islamism or political Islam, but Islam overall—is more dangerous or more conducive to violence than Zionism?

 

[LuisDantas]

Sorry, I'm struggling to understand how the middle paragraph (bolded), fits in with the paragaphs before or after?

To be clear, what "islam-friendly state" are you talking about? Israel is surrounded by such states already.

Indeed. That has been consistently the case since 1947 at least.

I guess that means that I see no point to the two-state solution even in the abstract.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Uh. Let's just say that I neither agree nor sympathise nor stand convinced that the idea deserves any respect.

I'm fortunate enough to not care either way.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Multiple times Mr Beat explains how conditions are better in Israel than Palestine. Access to clean drinking water, electricity, food, things that are lacking in the other country. Therefore, Manifest Destiny.

Conditions are better in Israel mainly due to having greater wealth, more military power (and consequently, more access to resources), and stronger backing by global powers such as the US. I don't see how this has any bearing on claims to land.

As for Manifest Destiny, I find that concept entirely irrelevant here. It is an overwhelmingly harmful view that contributed to the genocide of Native Americans and to white supremacism. I don't see it as having any merit or relevance in any discussion that remotely upholds ethical considerations.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Conditions are better in Israel mainly due to having greater wealth, more military power (and consequently, more access to resources), and stronger backing by global powers such as the US. I don't see how this has any bearing on claims to land.

If someone is able to take care a piece of land more than someone else, doesn't the person hold some value in its restoration?

Besides, it was Israelites that were there first, then it was Palestinians, and now Israelites just want the land they originally had back. Makes sense to me.

As for Manifest Destiny, I find that concept entirely irrelevant here. It is an overwhelmingly harmful view that contributed to the genocide of Native Americans and to white supremacism. I don't see it as having any merit or relevance in any discussion that remotely upholds ethical considerations.

The technology that the Natives had was stagnant. The tribes that were here before us were at war and had no unified sovereignty. If Americans had not settled in the West, our world would have shaped much differently, and probably, much worse than it is now. There was opportunity to claim land that was being under-utilized by the Natives and thus we shaped it under one sovereign democratic republic. To suggest anything less is anti-American and anti-Western values.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm fortunate enough to not care either way.

Yeah. That is fortunate, since you are not likely to earn a change in my opinion.

 

[Debater Slayer]

If someone is able to take care a piece of land more than someone else, doesn't the person hold some value in its restoration?

Not necessarily, no. I can't look at a derelict apartment and claim that because I can take care of it better than its current owner, I should be entitled to its ownership.

Besides, it was Israelites that were there first, then it was Palestinians, and now Israelites just want the land they originally had back. Makes sense to me.

Well, if we take irredentism to its logical conclusion, we then have to ask whether the US, for example, should be submitted to Native American rule because Native Americans were there before settlers arrived. The same goes for Australia, Egypt (since Arabs also arrived after conquering it), and multiple other countries. History is, of course, an important part of the discussion, but irredentism alone oversimplifies the issue.

The technology that the Natives had was stagnant. The tribes that were here before us were at war and had no unified sovereignty. If Americans had not settled in the West, our world would have shaped much differently, and probably, much worse than it is now. There was opportunity to claim land that was being under-utilized by the Natives and thus we shaped it under one sovereign democratic republic. To suggest anything less is anti-American and anti-Western values.

I don't see this as relevant here or have any interest in pursuing it, as I find it both tangential and apologetic toward genocide. However, I would suggest considering that many Americans and others from Western countries, quite possibly the majority, would certainly reject the assertion that denouncing the genocidal and supremacist notion of Manifest Destiny is anti-American or anti-Western.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

@Debater Slayer

Fine.

I made my opinion and you made yours. Yes, I will agree with you that there could have been better ways we could have dealt with the natives than just genocide. But to me Manifest Destiny is a call that includes more than just the genocide of the locals. And you made a good point of irredentism, too.