Israel/Palestine: one state or two

[Che Guava]

Heard a neat little debate this morning an a CBC series called The Current on the fate of Israel in the future vis-a-vis the situation with Palestine. It involved two scholars, one palestinian and one israeli, that agreed that the status quo is not working, but had very different solutions as to how to proceed.(I don't have a transcript, or even the names of the participants, unfortunately, but I'll try to sum up the viewpoints as best as I can recall).

The first argued that partitioning Israel is not feasible, simply for the fact that the palestinian territories are not self-sufficient on thier own, and that in spite of land deals, no one, israeli or palestinian, wants to move. The only way to achieve peace, he stated, is by a reform of the Israeli governmental system so that both sides are represented, and that a national campaign of reconcilliation be started, not unlike what has happened in SOuth Africa and Northern Ireland.

The other argued that palestinians and israelis were simply too different to lump together in a single state. The state of Israel, he argued, is tied to much to the jewish faith and jewish nationalism to be able to change that much, and that trying to incorporate the two people into a single state would result in the end of Israel as we know it, and misery for both parties. In his words, "we [israel and pesltine] just need a good diveroce lawyer".

It was an interesting debate, and I was wondering what people might think here. In short:

How will peace in Israel/Palestine be achieved: through a one state or two state solution?

 

[soul_warrior]

voted: 2 peoples, 2 countries.

i still maintain that since there were no palestinians prior to the creation of palestine, they can easily move, but that is another issue.

the reality is that there ARE 2 countries.
keeping the current borders seems fair enough to me.
both peoples have a right to live, but both will have to give up a bit.

saying that palestine is not self sufficient is like saying that singapore isnt.
if they dont have the land mass, they should trade, or find ways.
and they do, as they keep pointing out, have many friends around.

maybe, after a long while, both peoples will trade fairly, thus making profits to all concerned.
and big profits will draw out peace.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Can't vote since this is one conflict that has me stumped for answers.

A solid: "I don't know" for me.

 

[sourboy]

The only way to achieve peace, he stated, is by a reform of the Israeli governmental system so that both sides are represented, and that a national campaign of reconcilliation be started, not unlike what has happened in South Africa and Northern Ireland.

How will peace in Israel/Palestine be achieved: through a one state or two state solution?

AFAIK, S Africa and N Ireland are not exactly successful models...

"2 states" is not working now, and would take generations to make successful, unless they encouraged inter-racial breeding or something... (yeah right).

I think it's Israel's land and their choice on what to do with it. So long as there isn't genocide, so what? All these countries secretly support the Palestinians... heck, have them open their borders for immigration and be done with it.

If it comes to war... screw 'em. Winner conquers the land, end of story. Tired of all this whining and leash-pulling going on in Israel.

 

[Verbose]

You are aware that if you apply the "Winner takes all"-formula you might want to include a clause about duration? History doesn't stop at some convenient arbitrary point where we can declare winners and losers and put a cap on things.

But we can argue for "winner takes it all", sure. Then it's a waiting game until the Palestinians outnumber the Israelis by a big enough margins. In historical terms it should happen any minute. This is an Israeli fear.

The point of a settled peace isn't just that it will give the Palestinians some kind of compensation. It's also that it will make Israel safe(er) in the long run.

A major Israeli blocage would seem to be the overestimation of at what rate the military victories and might can be cashed in for long term political stability. The inconvenient truth is "not much". That's why Israel needs to negotiate, but also why it's so damn hard to give anything up for peace. since there is a feeling of entitlement for winning the wars. But it's the rare exception when a war removes the underlying cause of a conflict.

Otoh that feeling of Israeli entitlement seems even stronger in some quarters in the US.

 

[warpus]

1 state.

2 peoples 2 states obviously isn't working.

 

[Verbose]

There is no Palestinian state. There is a Palestinian authority. The day Israel recognises a Palestinian state we're not going to somehow miss that event.

But it is a bit funny in the way people have grown so used to the idea of a Palestinian state they jump the gun and think such a thing already exists.

 

[skadistic]

As long as there is Israel there is no peace. Its not there are out side forces like Iran that keep pushing war on the Israelis. The pallie's brothers don't want them to have a state of their own. If they did that and they couldn't point to the evil jews to deflect their population from seeing how bad they really have it.

 

[sourboy]

History doesn't stop at some convenient arbitrary point where we can declare winners and losers and put a cap on things.

But we can argue for "winner takes it all", sure. Then it's a waiting game until the Palestinians outnumber the Israelis by a big enough margins.

I'm looking at it like a [America conquers the Indians, then has to give up isolated lands to appease them later] scenario. If Israel controls the lands, let them. Palestinians can leave or try to win it back. Whatever... tired of the world holding Israel back. Let them duke it out and let there be peace. We are just prolonging a war and forcing it to span generations, thus making the hatred run deeper.

Oh, and number of people arguments are thin. China has a much larger army than the US, but the US has enough tech advantages to keep them at bay. Same is true for Israel.

 

[angeleyes]

3 states:

1 for israelis who don't want to live with palestines;
2 for palestines who don't want to live with israelis;
3 for people with brains.

 

[Bill3000]

3 states:

1 for israelis who don't want to live with palestines;
2 for palestines who don't want to live with israelis;
3 for people with brains.

so two states then?

 

[Mise]

I've lost the will to care about Israel/Palestine. Neither side seems willing to compromise, which is understandable, since they both have legitimate claims to the same territory. But with neither side willing to give, I just don't see how 1 state can ever work.

 

[Che Guava]

AFAIK, S Africa and N Ireland are not exactly successful models...

I think SA could be disputable, but I think N Ireland is a role model for reconcilliation of factions within a state. What exactly is the problem there now?

I think it's Israel's land and their choice on what to do with it. So long as there isn't genocide, so what? All these countries secretly support the Palestinians... heck, have them open their borders for immigration and be done with it.

I think it's pretty debatable to call it anyone's land exactly, and if we're willing to accept anything short of genocide, I think it could be a bumpy ride. As for other arab countries supporting palestinians...is that a secret?

The point of a settled peace isn't just that it will give the Palestinians some kind of compensation. It's also that it will make Israel safe(er) in the long run.

A major Israeli blocage would seem to be the overestimation of at what rate the military victories and might can be cashed in for long term political stability. The inconvenient truth is "not much". That's why Israel needs to negotiate, but also why it's so damn hard to give anything up for peace. since there is a feeling of entitlement for winning the wars. But it's the rare exception when a war removes the underlying cause of a conflict.

Otoh that feeling of Israeli entitlement seems even stronger in some quarters in the US.

Wise words. I think that we can all agree that a military solution to this problem isn't going to make for lasting peace...welll, maybe not all...

Whatever... tired of the world holding Israel back. Let them duke it out and let there be peace. We are just prolonging a war and forcing it to span generations, thus making the hatred run deeper.

Ah, the "kill 'em all and let god sort it out" plan...a well used one, but if history is any indication, not an effective one...A full-blown war against palestine by Israel would mean a conflict all across the middle east, maybe even the world, not something I would look forward to...

I've lost the will to care about Israel/Palestine. Neither side seems willing to compromise, which is understandable, since they both have legitimate claims to the same territory. But with neither side willing to give, I just don't see how 1 state can ever work.

On the contrary, I think the fact that both sides are unwilling to leave makes a one-state solution the only viable one...

 

[azzaman333]

Blow them all to smithereens.

 

[Che Guava]

Blow them all to smithereens.

SOrry, I guess I neglected to make that option availible in the poll...

 

[azzaman333]

SOrry, I guess I neglected to make that option availible in the poll...

As long as people under both ideas exist, there will be conflict.

Kill them all = conflict ended.

 

[angrybellsprout]

voted: 2 peoples, 2 countries.

Yes, white europeans and tan semites.

i still maintain that since there were no palestinians prior to the creation of palestine, they can easily move, but that is another issue.

Yes, the land was empty and barren since the Roman times. There were no people living there under the Byzantine times or during the Ottoman years.

the reality is that there ARE 2 countries.
keeping the current borders seems fair enough to me.
both peoples have a right to live, but both will have to give up a bit.

There is the european colony of Israel and then there are the native people of the land who have been living there for thousands of years. The current borders are quite just and fair, just push the people you don't like into a few large population groups and then build a wall around them. Worked in Warsaw didn't it?

saying that palestine is not self sufficient is like saying that singapore isnt. if they dont have the land mass, they should trade, or find ways.
and they do, as they keep pointing out, have many friends around.

Only europeans need silly things like water to live, and only europeans should have rights to water. The native people of the land never drink.

maybe, after a long while, both peoples will trade fairly, thus making profits to all concerned. and big profits will draw out peace.

Maybe one side will just continue to sieze the property of the other, and deny all of their basic human rights untill they are all finally dead.

 

[angrybellsprout]

I think it's Israel's land and their choice on what to do with it. So long as there isn't genocide, so what?

Greater Israel for the athiest jews. Screw everyone else because that is the entire point that the european powers created it. How can you have a jewish homeland when the majority of the population are brown semities instead of white europeans?

All these countries secretly support the Palestinians... heck, have them open their borders for immigration and be done with it.

Just like how many other nations secretly supported the european jews in the 1940s, and they oppened their borders for immigration so that there could be a pure Germany for pure Germans.

If it comes to war... screw 'em. Winner conquers the land, end of story. Tired of all this whining and leash-pulling going on in Israel.

Exactly, throw them onto trains and ship them to camps, show those dirty non-jews exactly how they should be threated. Why must we put limits on a states sovergein power to deal with its own issues within its own borders?

 

[sourboy]

I think SA could be disputable, but I think N Ireland is a role model for reconcilliation of factions within a state. What exactly is the problem there now?

Well it seems there's sort of a reverse apartheid going on right now in SA. As for N Eire, well... it's sort of working, but the IRA is still active to some extent, officially or not. Point is, both have had plenty of time to work, yet neither have achieved success. Why would Israel be any different?

I think it's pretty debatable to call it anyone's land exactly, and if we're willing to accept anything short of genocide, I think it could be a bumpy ride. As for other arab countries supporting palestinians...is that a secret?

Again, you conquer land, it's yours. In this case, the UN gave Israel the land, it's theirs. Everyone has their lands because they have the power to maintain their sovereignty. Should Jews have been given the lands? Probably not... but it was done. It was accepted by the UN. Accept it or do something about it. So far, no one has. What pisses me off is that we gave Israel the authority to have that land, yet we restrain them from keeping it. Is the conflict our little game? A modern Roman Colosseum per se?

Ah, the "kill 'em all and let god sort it out" plan...a well used one, but if history is any indication, not an effective one...A full-blown war against palestine by Israel would mean a conflict all across the middle east, maybe even the world, not something I would look forward to...

No, there is no God. I'm not advicated war by any means, but no other advanced country in the world would sit on their thumbs when terrorism was being done in their lands, just to appease the rest of the world. This whole thing is a mess, and I just figure hey... if Israel is the official owner, we should butt-out.

 

[Swedishguy]

I have a better idea; Palestine and Israel gets absorbed a world power free of choice. Like America, China, Sweden etc.