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

[Harel13]

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

It hasn't been tried yet. What we have seen are governing bodies that were supposedly democratically elected but are in effect quite tyrannical. The West prefers to tout the supremacy of equal rights for all, but the question is whether these people, who were not born in a Western culture, would be interested in trying something of the sort. Earlier I mentioned to @Brickjectivity that there are differences between Western gangs and khamulas. A khamula is a little like a clan. It was not necessarily set up for organized crime - typically far from that. But you do find khamula wars in various areas around the region, as well as in other countries. I say this in an attempt to give a bit of a taste of why Eastern mentality is different from Western mentality.

Perhaps the average Palestinian only wants to be able to provide for his family in a respectable manner and cares little for the ins and outs of democracy. But democracy was forced upon him several decades ago, and many political entities have worked hard to convince him that that would be the only way he'd receive some foreign cash.

Of course, residency status is found among several democratic countries, so it's not anti-democratic. But the option was never put on the table before the average Palestinian.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

All nations in the world stop supplying money, weapons, etc. to both sides and those of us who actually live in this region of the Middle East will figure it out between ourselves the way that normal (non-politically connected) Israelis and Palestinians do all the time every day. The way that Jews and Muslims were figuring it out way before this region became so "politically" interesting to the rest of the world.

 

[Harel13]

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.

That's because they are foreigners, non-citizens. Israel is under no legal obligation to assist them. It does, anyway, for various Western moral and political reasons, and often more than many other countries in the world (including most of the finger-pointers). Please tell me why you think Israel should give all the benefits of residence or citizenship to people who are not residents or citizens? These people are ruled by other governing bodies. In what strange upside down world do they "deserve" any assistance from a totally separate country?

But if they were to get residency, they would receive rights and it would then actually be logical to help them and provide them their full legal rights.

 

[Harel13]

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

Every time I receive an alert that you've replied to me in an Israel-related thread, I hold on to a small shred of hope that for once, Lyndon has done some background historical reading. I am sorry to say that I am as dismayed now as I have been every other time.

 

[Harel13]

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.

I didn't say I expected this. It's a personal hope, and frankly, a fairly realistic one, particularly in the modern world.

Israel has already expanded well beyond legal limits

As @icehorse has already pointed out on this thread, things are far from being as clear-cut as people try to paint them. I'm not sure you fully understand what you're saying when you say this. International law, as well as the ways it has been employed in practical terms over the decades, is not exactly as you appear to imagine it. Perhaps if I'll have more time later today, I'll add in more legal info.

and the newest government formed by Netanyahu comprises multiple supporters of such expansionist policies.

That is simply incorrect, unless you define implementing different policies on areas already legally controlled by Israel as being "expansionist". There is no one talking right now about expanding towards Area A, which is under the full control of the PA. Areas B and C are more grey. The only talks right now are about granting residency status to non-Israelis living in those areas.

The abusive policies toward Palestinians

What "abusive policies"?

 

[George-ananda]

It hasn't been tried yet. What we have seen are governing bodies that were supposedly democratically elected but are in effect quite tyrannical. The West prefers to tout the supremacy of equal rights for all, but the question is whether these people, who were not born in a Western culture, would be interested in trying something of the sort. Earlier I mentioned to @Brickjectivity that there are differences between Western gangs and khamulas. A khamula is a little like a clan. It was not necessarily set up for organized crime - typically far from that. But you do find khamula wars in various areas around the region, as well as in other countries. I say this in an attempt to give a bit of a taste of why Eastern mentality is different from Western mentality.

Perhaps the average Palestinian only wants to be able to provide for his family in a respectable manner and cares little for the ins and outs of democracy. But democracy was forced upon him several decades ago, and many political entities have worked hard to convince him that that would be the only way he'd receive some foreign cash.

Of course, residency status is found among several democratic countries, so it's not anti-democratic. But the option was never put on the table before the average Palestinian.

Well, I think the Palestinian leaders and the rest of the world are going to throw the dissatisfaction and second-class citizenry in everyone's faces and there will certainly not be the contented peace we are hoping for.

I think a two-state solution will be better for everyone including Israelis.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Well, I think the Palestinian leaders and the rest of the world are going to throw the dissatisfaction and second-class citizenry in everyone's faces [...]

And rightfully so, in my opinion. It is both fortunate and necessary that most of the world wouldn't agree to Israel's ambitions of fully controlling the entire land or Islamists' vision of doing the same and establishing an Islamic country in the region.

 

[Harel13]

Well, I think the Palestinian leaders and the rest of the world are going to throw the dissatisfaction and second-class citizenry in everyone's faces and there will certainly not be the contented peace we are hoping for.

The PA, terrorist groups such as Hamas and self-righteous enlightened Westerners have always been the biggest detractors of peace.

However, there's the possibility of a smaller test group, which is what is being proposed now: Granting residency to the non-Israeli Arabs in Area C and maybe also Area B in Judea and Samaria. I have little to no hopes of this being implemented so long as Netanyahu is Prime Minister, but if it is implemented, then this situation, should it work out, might be enough to change some minds on the international front.

 

[Debater Slayer]

That's because they are foreigners, non-citizens. Israel is under no legal obligation to assist them. It does, anyway, for various Western moral and political reasons, and often more than many other countries in the world (including most of the finger-pointers). Please tell me why you think Israel should give all the benefits of residence or citizenship to people who are not residents or citizens? These people are ruled by other governing bodies. In what strange upside down world do they "deserve" any assistance from a totally separate country?

But if they were to get residency, they would receive rights and it would then actually be logical to help them and provide them their full legal rights.

Sure, Israel isn't obligated to provide non-citizens with citizens' rights, but it should also stop building illegal settlements and recognize the country said non-citizens belong to. As long as it refuses to recognize Palestinian statehood, I don't see peace negotiations going anywhere.

I didn't say I expected this. It's a personal hope, and frankly, a fairly realistic one, particularly in the modern world.

You hope Palestinians just immigrate from their homeland and resettle elsewhere so that Israel can take the whole land, or am I misreading your position?

As @icehorse has already pointed out on this thread, things are far from being as clear-cut as people try to paint them. I'm not sure you fully understand what you're saying when you say this. International law, as well as the ways it has been employed in practical terms over the decades, is not exactly as you appear to imagine it. Perhaps if I'll have more time later today, I'll add in more legal info.

We've been over this in multiple other threads, and I doubt there's much point in repeating our respective arguments once more. I think the bottom line is that we simply won't agree as long as you believe that 1) Israel should be the only state in the region, and 2) ideally, the whole land should exclusively be ruled by only one state based on a religious belief or prophecy. I categorically oppose both premises and find them utterly counterproductive to coexistence and peace.

I suspect our disagreement will stand because of this fundamental difference in perspectives on the subject, since the disagreement is about the basic premises each of us is proceeding from rather than details of, say, implementing a two-state solution or the nuances of enabling peaceful coexistence in the region. You don't even agree that there should ideally be two states coexisting and recognizing each other in the region.

That is simply incorrect, unless you define implementing different policies on areas already legally controlled by Israel as being "expansionist". There is no one talking right now about expanding towards Area A, which is under the full control of the PA. Areas B and C are more grey. The only talks right now are about granting residency status to non-Israelis living in those areas.

I also made a thread about this before:

Netanyahu Says He Has Formed New Government

Israel's current situation is untenable from a legal and humanitarian viewpoint in multiple ways. It's no coincidence that many human rights organizations consisting of experts from around the world share this view.

What "abusive policies"?

We've also been over this in multiple earlier threads. I don't think repeating ourselves here would achieve anything, but I'll reiterate a couple of points for clarity:

A Threshold Crossed

‘They were just kids’: Evidence of war crimes during Israel’s August 2022 Gaza offensive [EN/AR] - occupied Palestinian territory

I don't have anything to add here that we haven't already been over, so I probably won't pursue this further. I usually find it counterproductive when a discussion or debate goes in circles and leads nowhere.

 

[Heyo]

I also have to wonder what God (if there is a God) would say about people fighting over a geographical location in His name.

There is a god character in Jewish scripture, YHVH the war god of Israel, that commanded the Israelites to take an inhabited land and exterminate the people living there.
If you mean that by "god", then, yes, that god would approve on Israel taking land by force.

 

[Debater Slayer]

There is a god character in Jewish scripture, YHVH the war god of Israel, that commanded the Israelites to take an inhabited land and exterminate the people living there.
If you mean that by "god", then, yes, that god would approve on Israel taking land by force.

Interpreting scripture or other religious texts in a literal manner and believing that God himself promised you dominion over a specific area seems to me a surefire recipe for disaster. This is exactly why I don't think there will be peace between Israel and Palestine until the religious fundamentalists and extremists are pushed to the margins of political leadership or entirely outside critical positions of power.

I have frequently said that a lot of Zionist extremists and Islamists don't realize how similar their ideologies look to many outsiders. This is from Sahih Muslim, the most authoritative hadith book in Sunni Islam alongside Sahih al-Bukhari:

Sahih Muslim 2922​

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) as saying:
The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.

Sahih Muslim 2922 - The Book of Tribulations and Portents of the Last Hour - كتاب الفتن وأشراط الساعة - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)

I can't conceive of a way to achieve peace as long as political leaders read passages like the above literally and genuinely believe they are from a divine source. And guess what? Both Israeli and Palestinian public figures and politicians who declare or imply that the other state must be completely driven out or not be recognized tend to be religious conservatives. Color me unsurprised.

 

[Harel13]

Sure, Israel isn't obligated to provide non-citizens with citizens' rights, but it should also stop building illegal settlements

This is a deflection or a moving of goalposts. Let's focus on one issue at a time. Do you really want me to bring up the Palestinian illegal settlements? I can, but I prefer we stay on topic.

and recognize the country said non-citizens belong to.

Why? (and see below)

As long as it refuses to recognize Palestinian statehood, I don't see peace negotiations going anywhere.

The PA doesn't recognize Israeli statehood. The PA also doesn't care about the people that fall under its jurisdiction. Israel does care about the people that fall under its jurisdiction. I do not see any point in further legitimizing a tyrannical, greedy, terrorist-supporting entity such as the PA.

You hope Palestinians just immigrate from their homeland and resettle elsewhere so that Israel can take the whole land, or am I misreading your position?

Once again. Some. It's a rational hope (as much as hope may be defined as rational), and actually fits more with your One World ideology. Let's not forget that the just a century ago, the ancestors of a great many of these people did not call this region of the Middle East home. Many immigrated here because of job opportunities that rose during the first decades of the the 20th century.
But my view that the first step is positive action from international entities and the second step is implementing residency does not hinge on the question of whether such a hope will come to pass or not.

We've been over this in multiple other threads, and I doubt there's much point in repeating our respective arguments once more. I think the bottom line is that we simply won't agree as long as you believe that 1) Israel should be the only state in the region, and 2) ideally, the whole land should exclusively be ruled by only one state based on a religious belief or prophecy. I categorically oppose both premises and find them utterly counterproductive to coexistence and peace.

Actually, I'm not sure we've ever gotten into the deep, nitty-gritty of the legal issues. People who side with the Palestinians seem to tend to dodge this quite often. That makes their positions boil down to a lot of talk, nothing more.

I also made a thread about this before:

Netanyahu Says He Has Formed New Government

In short, yes, you consider implementation of a residency policy on areas already legally controlled by Israel as "expansionist". I don't think even linguistics will side with you on this one, never mind legality.

We've also been over this in multiple earlier threads. I don't think repeating ourselves here would achieve anything, but I'll reiterate a couple of points for clarity:

A Threshold Crossed

The same issue that I've found on RF is touted again and again in this article: People seem to think that it is logical to consider non-Israeli Arabs in the region as deserving the same rights as Israeli Arabs. It is the same as considering modern Libyans as deserving of the same rights as Egyptian citizens of Libyan descent. You have already agreed with me that this notion is preposterous. Convince me that there is any point in taking that article's words seriously. This is law discussed on national and international level discussed by people who know nothing about how law works.

‘They were just kids’: Evidence of war crimes during Israel’s August 2022 Gaza offensive [EN/AR] - occupied Palestinian territory

I don't have anything to add here that we haven't already been over, so I probably won't pursue this further. I usually find it counterproductive when a discussion or debate goes in circles and leads nowhere.

There are many ways I could reply to this. Anything from other reports of over a dozen of these poor children dying due to misfired Gazan rockets, to the hypocrisy of Amnesty who have never in recent years said anything about Gazan war crimes against Israelis.

But when we take in all of the facts, considering that Israel does its best to warn Gazans before it strikes civilian areas, knowing that even the same targeted terrorists receive these notifications and know to run and hide and that Israel has not stormed in and annexed all of Gaza though it certainly has the power to do so, I must then turn to you and ask:

Is this really a policy of abuse?
Or are cases such as these the regretful circumstances of war against terrorist entities?

 

[Brickjectivity]

All nations in the world stop supplying money, weapons, etc. to both sides and those of us who actually live in this region of the Middle East will figure it out between ourselves the way that normal (non-politically connected) Israelis and Palestinians do all the time every day. The way that Jews and Muslims were figuring it out way before this region became so "politically" interesting to the rest of the world.

Israel is high tech and a center of learning and research. It has a dynamic political instrument with a secure tax base. It would be bad for USA were Israel's ties to bloom into a strategic advantage for groups opposed to us or to international peace -- or to what we perceive as a balance of global power. I think we call this "Global stability." It may actually be that we have overwhelming military superiority, but it never feels like we do. Israel is important strategically.

"Israel has increasingly become a country of strategic importance to the United States..."

Spoiler: US Military document link

Strategic Importance of Israel

If you like do an internet search in English using the phrase "Strategic important of Israel to the United States."

 

[Stevicus]

There is a god character in Jewish scripture, YHVH the war god of Israel, that commanded the Israelites to take an inhabited land and exterminate the people living there.
If you mean that by "god", then, yes, that god would approve on Israel taking land by force.

Yes, that's what many Americans have said about America, that our primacy over this land was God's will and our Manifest Destiny. For similar reasons, a lot of Americans have pointed to Bible prophecy and believe that it is America's duty to God to support Israel no matter what.

 

[Stevicus]

Interpreting scripture or other religious texts in a literal manner and believing that God himself promised you dominion over a specific area seems to me a surefire recipe for disaster. This is exactly why I don't think there will be peace between Israel and Palestine until the religious fundamentalists and extremists are pushed to the margins of political leadership or entirely outside critical positions of power.

I had a friend who was a big believer in Bible prophecy, and he really did believe that the creation of the state of Israel was a fulfillment of that prophecy. He believed that America had a God-given duty to support Israel no matter what. He also pointed out the many times Israel fought back and won when the odds were against them, insinuating that the Israelis have had Help From Above in securing their homeland. Even though the Arabs vastly outnumbered the Israelis, they were seemingly thwarted every time. My friend would cite that as proof that God is on the Israelis' side, and not the Arabs' side.

 

[sayak83]

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

Two state with the border determined by UN.
Palestine will be governed for 30 years by UN peacekeeping force (maybe spearheaded by Turkey and Egypt) to ensure no terrorism happens. After that they get full independence.

 

[jbg]

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

Israel's legitimacy is not suspended in judgment of Ramallah or Gaza.

 

[jbg]

Two state with the border determined by UN.
Palestine will be governed for 30 years by UN peacekeeping force (maybe spearheaded by Turkey and Egypt) to ensure no terrorism happens. After that they get full independence.

What if even after 30 years "Palestine" is still terrorist? What if the UN doesn't have the stomach to suppress terror?

 

[icehorse]

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.

No doubt you're correct. But I find it interesting that "the world" applies logic so inconsistently when it comes to this situation. For example, I would say that both sides are guilty of violent aggression, and it's really hard to untangle the chicken-and-egg-iness.

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 agree here as well. But the UN needs a serious overhaul.

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?

I'm not trying to be snarky here, but I honestly don't know how one would go about separating Islam from political Islam. Islam is a totalitarian ideology to its core, no?

That said, it seems to me that the so-called "zionists" would be content if they had clear claim to the WB. I don't imagine them undertaking further expansion in the future. In fact they've returned fairly won territories in the past as acts of good faith. When has political Islam done that?

And zooming out, Islam - during its existence - has most frequently expanded its reach using force.

 

[icehorse]

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.

Yup. If I was in charge, I'd offer to give Israel a chunk of land in north america - north dakota perhaps?

But religion rears its head here. That tiny plot of desert being discussed has seemingly intractable religious implications - which means ultimately the whole conflict is built on extraordinary claims we're meant to take on faith, with terribly weak evidence.