although what you say makes a lot of sense, that part of the world is one of the most ancient, beautiful and holy places on earth. for those people who are deeply rooted to their land it is a matter of duty and dignity towards their heritage.
I do wonder this though - why is the 2 state solution not the option, with the Palestinians getting East Jerusalem? Would this not help solve the problem?
Perhaps this is a question for the board - what do you see as the solution? I don't think displacement or extermination is the appropriate answer for either side.
Perhaps this is a question for the board - what do you see as the solution? I don't think displacement or extermination is the appropriate answer for either side.
Tons and TONS of compromise - on both sides. Something I don't see happening.
I do wonder this though - why is the 2 state solution not the option, with the Palestinians getting East Jerusalem? Would this not help solve the problem?
Perhaps this is a question for the board - what do you see as the solution? I don't think displacement or extermination is the appropriate answer for either side.
I honestly don't think a two state solution could work. Even if that is currently what both sides are working towards, I think the end game is a single, bi-national state. That way, settlements don't have to be torn down, Israeli-Arabs aren't forced to move into the Palestinian state and both sides can essentially live where they want in what they both claim as their ancestral home land. The biggest concessions would have to be for the Israelis to accept that they will never have a "Democratic Jewish Nation", but rather a "Democratic Homeland for the Jews". With the former being a a country for only Jews and the latter being a safe haven for Jews, but with Arabs living side by side as equals. The Palestinians would have to give up the "Right of return" as well as having a country just for them.
You've been very vocal in this thread - do you have any substantive ideas?
To be honest, besides the discontinuation of the settlements & negotiation of land in a two state solution (which is unlikely) - not really. Like _Q_ stated, there's no way you can move all the people from one side or the other in terms of permanent relocation. That place is so screwed up not even the world's best peace makers can think of anything that's going to cool tensions between Israel & Palestine. I can see things from both sides and it's really ugly. There's no trust, and it seems neither side is willing to compromise.
I wish I could fast forward to about 100 or so years from now and see how and if the conflict was settled, just to see how things are going to play out in the future.
I'm sure all of these people received fair trials beforehand too.
And in other news...
Quote:
Israeli hospitals are treating dozens of patients of all ages who came to Israel from Gaza to get healthcare unavailable there, and are making provisions for accompanying persons.
“Just two days ago, a nineyear- old girl from Gaza who was hurt in her palm was brought to Sheba. Her father is an Arab journalists who writes from Gaza for an Israeli newspaper. She was accompanied by her mother. An Israeli boy who was wounded by a Gazan rocket that fell in Kiryat Malachi last week is in the same room with a Gazan girl whose fingers were amputated due to injury,” Marom said. “We regard our hospital as a bridge to peace.”
I honestly don't think a two state solution could work. Even if that is currently what both sides are working towards, I think the end game is a single, bi-national state. That way, settlements don't have to be torn down, Israeli-Arabs aren't forced to move into the Palestinian state and both sides can essentially live where they want in what they both claim as their ancestral home land. The biggest concessions would have to be for the Israelis to accept that they will never have a "Democratic Jewish Nation", but rather a "Democratic Homeland for the Jews". With the former being a a country for only Jews and the latter being a safe haven for Jews, but with Arabs living side by side as equals. The Palestinians would have to give up the "Right of return" as well as having a country just for them.
I think you have a good point, except for thinking that Israel has a 'democratic jewish nation' when in fact many different types of people live in Israel.
Why can't everyone be under the same rule? Isn't the population of Israel 20% Arab? Obviously that shows they can live in peace. Perhaps that is the problem. One side quite obviously doesn't want peace regardless of the conditions.
In my mind there are really only two ways forward:
Option 1:
Arab states and Fatah/Hamas recognize Israel and have full diplomatic ties. Then a Palestinian state is created in West Bank/Gaza or some variant thereof. However they work out the land swaps is between Israel/Fatah/Hamas or whatever.... Don't care about the details. The first point is the key issue.
Option 2:
Full out war, winner takes all.
If they don't want to recognize Israel then they should all just declare outright war, duke it out and have winner take all. No receding back to pre-war borders like in the '48, '67, and '72 wars like Israel had done every time (apart from buffer zone in the Golan).
All of these countries have been standing in the way of any kind of meaningful peace process, so either put up or shut up! If you are conquered then you have to shut the f up. See every single war in the history of mankind as reference.
So much nonsense in those maps its hard to know where to begin.
Such as? I saw this posted on Facebook and admitedly haven't looked into it - but it's not the first time I've seen these maps, and the last map is definitely a representation of what Palestine looks like right now.
Such as? I saw this posted on Facebook and admitedly haven't looked into it - but it's not the first time I've seen these maps, and the last map is definitely a representation of what Palestine looks like right now.
He does a pretty good job explaining it here, start at 4 mins 5 secs in:
Albeit a pro Israel webpage, I can't find any factually incorrect statements in this:
Quote:
While I presume that the white sections are indeed the land that was privately owned by Jews, the land in green was not privately owned by Arabs.
Only a tiny percentage of land in Palestine was privately owned. The various categories of land ownership included:
Mulk: privately owned in the Western sense.
Miri: Land owned by the government (originally the Ottoman crown) and suitable for agricultural use. Individuals could purchase a deed to cultivate this land and pay a tithe to the government. Ownership could be transferred only with the approval of the state. Miri rights could be transferred to heirs, and the land could be sub-let to tenants. If the owner died without an heir or the land was not cultivated for three years, the land would revert to the state.
Mahlul: Uncultivated Miri lands that would revert to the state, in theory after three years.
Mawat (or Mewat): So-called “dead”, unreclaimed land. It constituted about 50 to 60% of the land in Palestine. It belonged to the government. ...If the land had been cultivated with permission, it would be registered, at least under the Mandate, free of charge.
By the early 1940s Jews owned about one third of Mulk land in Palestine and Arabs about two-thirds. The vast majority of the total land, however, belonged to the government, meaning that when the state of Israel was established, it became legally Israel's. (I believe that about 77% of the land was owned by the government, assuming 6 million dunams of private land as shown in this invaluable webpage on the topic from which I got much of this information.)
To say that the green areas were "Palestinian" land is simply a lie.
In the case of this version of the map, the lie is even worse, as the implication is that pre-1948 Palestine was an entirely Arab country with no Jews and no Jewish land ownership. Of course, before 1948 the word "Palestinian" more often than not referred to Palestinian Jews, not Palestinian Arabs. For example, the Palestine exhibit at the 1939 World's Fair was entirely Jewish, the Palestine Orchestra was entirely Jewish, the Palestine soccer team was almost entirely Jewish, and so forth.
I think you have a good point, except for thinking that Israel has a 'democratic jewish nation' when in fact many different types of people live in Israel.
Why can't everyone be under the same rule? Isn't the population of Israel 20% Arab? Obviously that shows they can live in peace. Perhaps that is the problem. One side quite obviously doesn't want peace regardless of the conditions.
20% is the official number, but some say there is probably more. Closer to 25 or 30%. In fact I would argue that the Israeli Arab population is higher than 50% if you count all the Jews that came from Arab countries. That group numbers around 3 million and until the creation of Israel, most of them would have identified with where they're from rather than their religion. A lot of them still speak Arabic at home as well as Hebrew. But, this opens a can of worms in terms of who is or isn't a Jew and most of them do not associate with Arabs anymore.
The way I see it is this. Create two states, one Jewish and one Arab (Israel and Palestine). Have them both in a confederation, call it something neutral and uniting like United Semitic States. Both people can agree that their Semites, they can start with that. Have neutral symbols like what Cyprus did as to not offend each side. Each state has it's own laws that govern everything other than national defence and other things of national interest. Severely limit further immigration, maybe open a 5 year window for Jews and Palestinians to return to this new nation, then close the doors for good. Make Jerusalem the capital city, but make the district not technically in either state (sort of like Washington DC).
I'm sure it won't be as simple as that, but I think that's a solid framework that can be workable.
Edit: More importantly, do not re-settle either population, but rather have them accept that they will be living under the laws of their chosen state. Obviously human rights will have to be honoured in each state, but say Palestine wants to make public holidays coincide with Muslim and Christian holidays, then too bad, so sad for the Jews. If they don't like it, they can go to Israel. Similarly, if Israel wants to make Saturday and Sunday the weekend, then too bad for the Muslims, they'll just have to work on Friday and not go for Friday prayers.
Last edited by _Q_; 11-20-2012 at 11:42 AM.
Reason: Added more to my proposal
I think you have a good point, except for thinking that Israel has a 'democratic jewish nation' when in fact many different types of people live in Israel.
Why can't everyone be under the same rule? Isn't the population of Israel 20% Arab? Obviously that shows they can live in peace. Perhaps that is the problem. One side quite obviously doesn't want peace regardless of the conditions.
If you put everyone under the same rule, one person = one vote, then the nation would be democratic but not "Jewish." I suspect that is not something the Israelis would be interested in.
If you put everyone under the same rule, one person = one vote, then the nation would be democratic but not "Jewish." I suspect that is not something the Israelis would be interested in.
Are you saying Arab Israelis that are NOT Jewish do not have a vote in the elections?
What happens if they have a Navy? Do they call their ships a USS <<insertnamehere>>? LOL
I don't think it's a bad idea at all, just don't see anyone agreeing to it.
Does the US have a ship named after someone other than a white person? Honest question.
Usually the ships are named after a person that had a significant affect on the country, and it shouldn't really matter if that person is Arab, Jewish, Christian, White, Black, Asian, etc, etc....
Such as? I saw this posted on Facebook and admitedly haven't looked into it - but it's not the first time I've seen these maps, and the last map is definitely a representation of what Palestine looks like right now.
Those maps show 4 entirely different things:
Map 1: Jewish settlements
Map 2: Proposed political borders that the Arab states rejected
Map 3: Political border following the 1949 war.
Map 4: Palestinian settlements
A much more accurate idea of Israeli ambitions is provided by the route of the West Bank Barrier.
As you can see only about 3-4% of the West Bank lies on the Israeli side. As it's no longer 1967, it makes much more sense to redraw the borders in a way that provides the best options to both Arabs an Jews. In other words, the land swap.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
