The Two-State Solution

[Cheezy the Wiz]

This thread is about the idea of two states, that is, a separate Palestine and Israel, as a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.

It was argued in this thread that Hamas cannot be simply "killed" as one cuts the head from a serpent. It was also argued that the idea of an integrated Israel is one long-since lost, and that the two-state solution is the only remaining, acceptable option.

It was also proven that Hamas, the present spokes-party for the Palestinians, is unwilling to accept that sort of a solution, and desires to remove not only Zionists, but Jews entirely, from Palestine. I think it goes without saying that this is equally unacceptable to driving the Arabs out of Palestine in the first place. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Israel has been both more and less open to the idea of the two-state solution at different points in its history. I do not know where it stands now. However, it stands arguably proven that it is the Palestinians whose opinion must be swayed more, are we to have any end to this conflict.

So what is to be done?

I believe there are a few criteria we must meet to achieve an acceptable end to this:

1) Popular support of Hamas must be removed from the Palestinian people. Hamas gains its strength from The People; in them, it "swims as though a fish in water," as Mao Zedong so aptly put it. If the average Palestinian can be convinced that he has more to gain from supporting something else than supporting Hamas, then their power will slowly be eroded. The question is, then, with what methods can the average Palestinian be taken away from Hamas, what offers, what opportunities, what solutions can we offer or can be offered that will both be to Joe Palestinian's advantage to support, and be apparent enough for him to easily see? This is one question we must answer.

2) Israel must give up some of its land gained in the Six-Day War. You simply cannot house, much less support, 1.5 million people in as small an area as the Gaza Strip. Israel must surrender some of its land to a future Palestinian state.

3) A compromise must be reached concerning the sovereignty of the city of Jerusalem. Perhaps it can be administered as a constitutionally neutral city-state, with free passage for all who wish to visit the Holy City. It should be a demilitarized zone, with an aura of peace comparable to its spiritual value. Given the "progressive attitude" of Islam, this may be difficult to engineer, but perhaps made somewhat easier by the fact that Israel controls the city.

4) Syria must recognize Israeli sovereignty. Of Israel's former adversaries, it is the only nation that has yet to do so.

And now we Discus.



EDIT:

I was hoping you people could be mature enough to discuss this in a respectful or vaguely intelligent manner. Since you cannot, I will say here that further incidents will not be tolerated.

In other words, if you have nothing to contribute to this thread, but wish to post in it anyway, kindly piss off.

 

[ecuwins]

5) Do away with organized religion

 

[hossam]

my solution: have all the arab( not all of them , just the ones neighboring israel) states declare war on israel and let them duke it out till there is only one side left. remember people there can be only one.

 

[Truronian]

Your criteria seem fairly sensible.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Your criteria seem fairly sensible.

I meant to discuss how my criteria could be achieved, or for people to possibly propose more. I think 1) deserves the must attention in the first regard.

 

[jessiecat]

As I've already suggested in the other thread, the two-state solution is the ONLY choice that has any hope of success. And yes, I agree with all the above criteria. With one addition. The right of return for BOTH sides needs to be restricted.
And as I tried to point out at length in the other thread; in order to come to some agreement with the Palestinians the Israelis have to decide not only who they can do business with, but who can speak for the majority of the Palestinian people with real authority and credibility.
Obviously not Hamas, but who then? As I've already suggested the one person who might just qualify is presently sitting in an Israeli prison, Marwan Barghouti. If you don't know who he is, google his name or read the article about him in Wiki. I predict we're going to hear a lot more about this guy in the months to come.

 

[Alpine Trooper]

The Jews seem to be having such a hard time dealing with the 1.5 million people they've displaced and forced into cramped ghettos to their north. So,

I proposed a unified bilingual nation.

You propose a two state solution.

And Israel proposes continually invading a small and cramped pocket of the earth with advanced weaponary.

It seems odd that you want civility in your thread when half the people on these forums refuse to recognize blatant human rights abuses by Israel. They're the same people who ignore human rights abuses by the United States. Whenever its not convenient for them. And they just don't want to accept the fact that if you continue to retaliate in such abusive manners that the problems will never be solved.

 

[Shekwan]

Partition always seems like the perfect solution, but how often does it actually work?

 

[innonimatu]

I don't think that the two state solution can succeed, except if both states are integrated into some larger regional organization. The territory is too small, the resources and the history attached to each part of it too important for the people in conflict. If all your four points could be achieved, it would be possible. But there's too much bad blood and too much entanglement for those to be possible.

Even if what you propose was attained, as things stand now the Palestinian state would always be much poorer, and therefore fertile ground for groups like Hamas. And on the israeli side there would always be two groups ready to help those restart conflict: the irredentist nationalists claiming all that "holy land" and the economic opportunists and military hawks expecting to profit from war. In fact that's the biggest stumbling block: both the militant palestinian groups and the israeli security chiefs depend on continued conflict to maintain their power. They have no interest in a lasting peace! Peace can be forced on them or they can be replaced (easier on the israeli side), but the opportunity and the danger remains.

So I can only see a two-state solution if both states remain united somehow - that's one of the reasons I favor the entrance of Turkey in the EU. Absurd as it may seem now, it may provide within a few decades a lasting solution for this problem.
A single state, with everyone as equal citizens, would be a much better solution. And there it's up to Israel to start the process - it could be done in stages, but in the end Israel would indeed cease to be a "jewish state".

 

[Yoda Power]

2,3 and 4 can be done though it will be hard. I doubt 1 is even possible.

 

[innonimatu]

Perhaps I can also contribute with my assessment of the current situation, it may be useful to further the discussion.

Tactically Israel will continue to will each conflict for the foreseeable future, but strategically the palestinians can continue the war indefinitely. That's a unique colonial war which combines two different forms of older colonial wars: (1) territorial contiguity and (2) a continued rebellion by the conquered population, combined with the refusal by the colonial power to integrate that population.

(1) happened during the expansion of the USA, Russia, Chile, etc, and usually led to the near-total massacre of the "natives", their reduction to an insignificant numbed which could be "safely" integrated into a modern political (democratic) state. (2) happened with the european occupation of Africa and Asia, and ended with the withdrawal (defeat) of the colonial powers. Neither solution can be applied to the conflict in Palestine: Israel cannot organize a genocide in the 21st century and under the eyes of the world, but nor cat it simply disengage, due to that territorial contiguity which was so advantageous to colonial powers during the 19th century, when genocide was an option.
The closest historical parallels I see are south african apartheid and the collapse of the USSR, but even those are only close. South Africa had a mixed population over its territory, Palestine does not (Israel and the occupied territories are recognized as two separate entities). Russia could afford to abandon vast expanses of its imperial domains (and indeed Yeltsin took the initiative), it still retained plenty of territory - the israelis feel that they can't.

 

[jessiecat]

2,3 and 4 can be done though it will be hard. I doubt 1 is even possible.

At the risk of repeating myself, I believe that No. 1 is very possible. In fact it must be the first issue to be addressed, as Cheezy says. (see post 6 and what I suggested in the other thread.)

 

[ori]

1) Hamas is not a movement that is uniform in its aims. There are essentially two centers of power - the Syrian based leadership of the movement and the people based in Gaza. These two have in the past not had the same aims and there has been considerable softening in the stance of the Gazan leadership towards coexistance with Israel while the Syrians hardened their stance. It is not necessary to remove Hamas - right now the Gazan position is quite similar to that of Fatah before the Oslo agreement - the problem is that basically Israel after making concessions to Fatah in order for it (and the PLO) to recognize the right of Israel to exist now will need to make more concessions to Hamas in order to get the same thing - basically paying twice for the same thing. So I guess Hamas can be dealt with - at least the Gazan leadership while the Syrians need to be marginalised.

2) Gaza has already been evacuated - Israel needs to also officially vacate the border with Egypt - but that really is just stating what is already the fact. The West Bank needs to be compromised on - in general the Sharon settlement block will not go away - so there needs to be a land swap of some kind. All other settlements need to go away. Hebron has to be evacuated of settlers to start with. But frankly land issues are not the sticking point. Water will be.

I do not know what you are aiming at with 67 - the only land gained there where Gaza which is in its entirety already evacuated by Israel, the West Bank where even more Palestinians live and the Golan - which is Syrian. Are you saying Israel needs to give up land that inside the green line (i.e. Israel proper) and give up land it controlled before 67?

3) Jerusalem is the problem - no solution is really satisfactory or workable. To "neutralize" the whole city or put it under UN control as the partition plan envisioned will not work. The old city with most of the holy places might be possible - the rest will need to be administered by one side or the other - most likely split into a Palestinian and an Israeli side. However this is the only land issue that is really complicated (and don't forget: this is also the one place were third parties demand a say: Jordan has still not recognized Palestinian sovereignty over the holy places and the Holy See as well as the Orthodox church are meddling in this place as well and they have real influence).

4) You forget Lebanon and Iran (which essentially controls southern Lebanon via Hezbollah). Syria is of course the main player still out there though. Frankly any Peace deal would be easy once both sides decide to actually want one - Syria will get back the Golan - but will not get those parts of Israel (inside the Green line) it occupied prior to the official start of the 67 hostilities - water will be split, Golan will have even more international observers and be demilitarized. There are not really sticky problems between those two countries.

You forget
5) the Refugees have to be dealt with. The Right of Return is a fiction. It will not occur. There needs to be financial compensation and either a Return of Refugees to Gaza and the West Bank or the Arab nations need to get their act together and finally allow them to integrate into their societies. I shudder what Germany (were I come from) would look like if we had not integrated the Sudeten and Prussian refugees even though their displacement after the war was injust. This problem is just as much Arab made as it is Israel's problem. Compensation will have to include Compensation for Jews displaced from Arab countries (I know that Arabs do not like to hear this - but the Palestinian Refugees were not the only ones caused by the troubles surrounding the founding of Israel). This is a major sticking point because all Palestinian organizations have founded their policies on the promise of returning the refugees to their ancestral homes. This will not happen. And it really would need courage from any Palestinian leader to openly admit that compromise will be needed on this point. There will be no Peace until this is resolved.

To answer another poster:
the one-state solution is a pipe dream - essentially it would require the Jewish majority of Israel to relinquish any hope of having any major role in the state that they established and fought for - no matter how you stand on the issue - it will not happen unless Israel is defeated militarily. Anyone who argues for it is essentially prolonging the war and suffering on both sides - people need to accept reality and one of it is that Israel exists and is currently a state with a Jewish majority and will remain so for the foreseeable future. This is not counting Gaza and West Bank which will not be annexed by Israel and the only solution for these territories is their own statehood (or integration into a neighboring state).

 

[Pannonius]

I don't think Syria should be forced to recognize Israel. Tacit cooperation would be enough.

 

[emzie]

How about a two-and-a-half state solution? The West Bank and Gaza might as well be different countries now.

 

[Godwynn]

I prefer the no-state solution. No one owns the Holy Land and it is policed by impartial Buddhist Japanese soldiers.

 

[Gooblah]

I would throw in one more condition:
5) All Israeli settlers leave the West Bank.

The presence of settlers on land that they should not be on (essentially illegal immigrants) is a thorn in the side of West Bank citizens, and is stalling the development of Palestinian land.

 

[Lillefix]

Wasn't it in Life of Brian they said that the only ones who could keep peace in Palestine was the Romans?

I don't think it's far from the truth.

 

[Verbose]

Wasn't it in Life of Brian they said that the only ones who could keep peace in Palestine was the Romans?

I don't think it's far from the truth.

Ok, so send in the Carabinieri as peacekeepers.

 

[Alpine Trooper]

To answer another poster:
the one-state solution is a pipe dream - essentially it would require the Jewish majority of Israel to relinquish any hope of having any major role in the state that they established and fought for - no matter how you stand on the issue - it will not happen unless Israel is defeated militarily. Anyone who argues for it is essentially prolonging the war and suffering on both sides - people need to accept reality and one of it is that Israel exists and is currently a state with a Jewish majority and will remain so for the foreseeable future. This is not counting Gaza and West Bank which will not be annexed by Israel and the only solution for these territories is their own statehood (or integration into a neighboring state).

I live relatively safe in Canada so I don't really care whether its a pipe dream to be honest I just see it as the logical alternative to their suffering. I don't support states that are religiously organized either but you can bet that's the least of my concerns with Israel.

I think both sides of the conflict have effectively proven how beneficial their religion is to the human race. Their greed over a bunch of rotting buildings in a desert isn't worth a more detailed plan for saving their asses as far as I am concerned.