Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

[civver_764]

I'm just curious to see where the various members on CFC fall on this.

Me? I support a two state solution for obvious reasons. I understand that the Jewish Israelis aren't going anywhere and they need a state of their own right now because of the anti-semitism that still persists in the world.

It doesn't justify the way they treat the Arabs though. The fact that America and other states support them so much utterly disgusts me. They aren't the victims anymore and need to be criticized immensely for their actions.

Poll coming up.

 

[Tee Kay]

Unless we are fine with massive forced population transfers like what happened in 1923 and 1945, a one-state solution is probably the most practical solution, which isn't saying much.

 

[IAM]

When faced with conflict between two evils support the weaker one in the hope that they will cancel each other out.

 

[YonatanBlum]

A one-state solution is completely irrational, and would not work even if, as seems to be the trend, Palestinian demographic growth declines. Those who espouse it either have no real idea of the situation on the ground and the people involved, or, even worse, are willfully espousing the destruction of the Jewish State and basically advocating for further misery. Anyways, the one-state solution is an idealistic and at times foolish dream that is not likely at all to ever come into fruition.

The two-state solution is obviously the only reasonable one. It does NOT necessarily involve population transfer. At most it would involve transferring some tens of thousands of settlers back to Israel from the West Bank, which is feasible; remember, most of the West Bank "settlers" or NOT ideologues, and would be willing to change their living arrangements (and receive compensation for it) if doing so would be necessary. The Palestinian State formed would not have 100% of the West Bank, alas; things have changed in half a century...

Gaza is currently out of the picture when it comes to a Palestinian State, because of Hamas. But in terms of feasible infrastructure connecting the West Bank to Gaza that would allow for one contiguous state, there are some entirely realistic options. A raised highway + railway would make the most sense; and remember that the distances travelled are comparatively tiny.

 

[civver_764]

Unless we are fine with massive forced population transfers like what happened in 1923 and 1945, a one-state solution is probably the most practical solution, which isn't saying much.

Why would there need to be forced population transfers?

Gaza is currently out of the picture when it comes to a Palestinian State, because of Hamas.

Hamas have expressed interest in a two-state solution at 1967 borders.

 

[Tee Kay]

Those who espouse it either have no real idea of the situation on the ground and the people involved, or, even worse, are willfully espousing the destruction of the Jewish State and basically advocating for further misery.

What's the "further misery"? Care to elaborate?

The two-state solution is obviously the only reasonable one. It does NOT necessarily involve population transfer. At most it would involve transferring some tens of thousands of settlers back to Israel from the West Bank, which is feasible;

Or several hundred thousand, possibly more if East Jerusalem goes to Palestine.

The Palestinian State formed would not have 100% of the West Bank, alas; things have changed in half a century...

One more reason the two-state solution will go nowhere.

 

[YonatanBlum]

Hamas have expressed interest in a two-state solution at 1967 borders.

The problem is, true "1967 borders" are no longer an option for the would-be Palestinian State. As I said, things have changed in the last 43 years. Discussing a peace from the BASIS of 1967 is OK; demanding full withdrawal back to the 1949 Armistice Borders, and Armistice is the key word here, is foolish.

Nor is "expressing interest" good enough. You have to realize that after decades of conflict, peace can only be achieved if the parties involve have some semblance of trust in each other's willingness to make some sacrifices and act rationally. No one trusts Hamas, especially not the Palestinian Authority.

What's the "further misery"? Care to elaborate?

In this one-state scenario, bloody civil war is inevitable. Look at the example of Yugoslavia, and then add to it decades of conflict and hate, and viola.

One more reason the two-state solution will go nowhere.

It's the only way to true peace. Both sides have to make concessions, and that includes 100% of the West Bank to the Palestinians. Probably ninety-something percent, but not 100%. Compromise is the only way; and with reasonable leadership, compromise is entirely possible.

 

[Tee Kay]

Why would there need to be forced population transfers?

The West Bank currently has a very large Jewish minority. Repatriating all settlers to Israel would be met with a strong opposition I'd imagine. Look at how hard it was to get the settlers in the Gaza Strip out, and they're a tiny fraction of the number of settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Of course, it doesn't need to happen. A democratic Palestinian state can come into being with a large Jewish minority, and a democratic Israel can continue to exist as a Jewish state with a large Arab majority. That'd be sensible. Unfortunately the loudest voices are the extreme ones, and sense is lacking on both sides.

 

[Godwynn]

I used to be a big supporter of Israel.

Since the 2006 Lebanon War, I have become staunchly opposed to Israel.

 

[JohnRM]

Kill 'em all. Let [their] God sort them out.

 

[Tee Kay]

In this one-state scenario, bloody civil war is inevitable. Look at the example of Yugoslavia, and then add to it decades of conflict and hate, and viola.

What's to guarantee that it doesn't happen with a two-state solution?

 

[Bast]

1967 borders are fine if Israel (not the aggressor) had lost the war and the international community intervened and gave it back its territory.

As it is, it was the aggressors that lost the war and the land. Why should Israel be punished for what it didn't start?

 

[Glassfan]

Civver recognizes the obvious, public ties of America and Israel and finds it disgusting. Does he also recognize the less public ties between Syria and Iran with Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist groups, and that the hostility of these nations against Israel prevents any permanent peace? He doesn't mention it.

America has supported Israel - I suspect as much for it's Western style culture and democratic institutions as much as the influence of Jewish constituents on US politicians - but has also supported (and paid for) the ongoing peace process. Every American Secretary of State since Henry Kissinger has gone over to negotiate with leaders on both sides to arrange an end to the killing. Current Sec State Clinton is active in this area.

And while Israel's border security operations are regrettable, they are also necessary - any nation in the same position would do likewise. There are few borders anywhere in the world that have not seen this at one time or another. A century ago, President Wilson sent General Pershing and his troops across the border into Mexico on a punitive expedition to hunt down Pancho Villa and his forces who had entered the US and killed unarmed civilians. The principle duty of a government is to protect its' people - Israel can do no less. Some Muslim countries in the Middle East are using the Palestinians as a foil against the Jewish State, and work behind the scenes to prevent a lasting peace.

Another question - is a tiny little Palestinian state, divided into two parts, actually tenable?

 

[Cu Chulainn]

Where's the option for "Israel and Palestine deserve each other and I just hope they don't take anyone else with them on the way down." ...while moral grounds keeps me from thinking that's actually true it's pretty much how I feel at the end of every I/P conversation after I quit in disgust.

 

[JohnRM]

1967 borders are fine if Israel (not the aggressor) had lost the war and the international community intervened and gave it back its territory.

As it is, it was the aggressors that lost the war and the land. Why should Israel be punished for what it didn't start?

Because that war has almost nothing to do with the people currently living there.

 

[Verbose]

Another question - is a tiny little Palestinian state, divided into two parts, actually tenable?

It had better be, for Israel's sake.

What's necessary is political separation, but then also economic integration, in that order for reasons of practicality.

If your concern really is about Palestinian allegiances, then you should be rooting for implementing a sovereign Palestinian state asap, as it is one of the simpler ways to clarify the situation. So far the Israelis will neither annex, or even properly occupy them, but neither will it allow them the kind of control of their own affairs necessary for actual sovereignty (and accountability). Bit of a vacuum. Makes for a kind of free-for-all.

 

[Tee Kay]

1967 borders are fine if Israel (not the aggressor) had lost the war and the international community intervened and gave it back its territory.

As it is, it was the aggressors that lost the war and the land. Why should Israel be punished for what it didn't start?

Uh, Israel started the War of 1967. Or at least fired the first shot.

And while Israel's border security operations are regrettable, they are also necessary - any nation in the same position would do likewise. There are few borders anywhere in the world that have not seen this at one time or another. A century ago, President Wilson sent General Pershing and his troops across the border into Mexico on a punitive expedition to hunt down Pancho Villa and his forces who had entered the US and killed unarmed civilians.

Did Wilson occupy Mexico, settle Americans on Mexican land while depriving the original inhabitants of the benefits of citizenship?

 

[Masada]

Did Wilson occupy Mexico, settle Americans on Mexican land while depriving the original inhabitants of the benefits of citizenship?

Wilson didn't like blacks?

 

[Tee Kay]

Wilson didn't like blacks?

Well, they are stupid, ignorant, violent people who breed like rabbits. They cannot govern themselves and when we bring them the benefits of civilization they hate us...

No, I'm not being serious

 

[Glassfan]

Uh, Israel started the War of 1967. Or at least fired the first shot.



Did Wilson occupy Mexico, settle Americans on Mexican land while depriving the original inhabitants of the benefits of citizenship?

No, prior presidents did that. The point was that most borders see this kind violence, not just Israels'.