How would you solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

TheDreamer

I've seen a few threads here that have to do, with one way or another, with Israel and the Palestinians. A lot of criticism has been written. Lots of accusations. A lot of words on what is done wrong.
My question is, what do you think is the permenant long term solution to this conflict? What would you do to end this conflict once and for all?

Flamed Diving

TheDreamer wrote: »

I've seen a few threads here that have to do, with one way or another, with Israel and the Palestinians. A lot of criticism has been written. Lots of accusations. A lot of words on what is done wrong.
My question is, what do you think is the permenant long term solution to this conflict? What would you do to end this conflict once and for all?

I don't think it is solvable, when you consider the religious context. If a solution must be proposed, I would suggest removing one of the opposing groups.

Denerick

Far too many people are willing to point fingers and overlook the fundamental problems:

1) A group of people (Fanatical Orthodox Jewish settlers) insisting on maintaing the delusion of a 'Greater Israel'

2) A group of people (Palestinians) who teach their children of the glory of martyrdom and the necessity of killing Jews.

3) A political party (Hamas) that doesn't recognise the Israeli State. Not conducive to peace.

4) Hundreds of thousands of hot heads on both sides who'll never surrender.

Peace? its impossible. Co-existance, maybe.

Flamed Diving

Denerick wrote: »

Far too many people are willing to point fingers and overlook the fundamental problems:

1) A group of people (Fanatical Orthodox Jewish settlers) insisting on maintaing the delusion of a 'Greater Israel'

2) A group of people (Palestinians) who teach their children of the glory of martyrdom and the necessity of killing Jews.

3) A political party (Hamas) that doesn't recognise the Israeli State. Not conducive to peace.

4) Hundreds of thousands of hot heads on both sides who'll never surrender.

Peace? its impossible. Co-existance, maybe.

All you require are one and two, to be honest. It's all about Jerusalem. The city where Mohammed (conveniently) ascended into heaven. Where the Temple Mount is. Which is also the spot the Jews hold is high reverence. Not to mention the Christian interest there. You couldn't write the script.

ei.sdraob

AH Answer: Nothing that a couple of nukes couldnt solve

Politics Answer: Recognition of Palestine and EU membership for both, we were (are) quite deeply divided here in Ireland too, a bit of prosperity via a common market went a long way to solving our problems

silverharp

Its crying out for A Libertarian stateless solution. There will not be peace as long as there is a state of Israel. The Zionists would be happy as they would still have access to the land of Israel and the Palestinians would not have a "state" to attack. Peace and commerce is necessary for long term prosperity.

The Saint

A mix of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative and the 2003 Geneva Accord.

Denerick

Silverharp2 wrote: »

Its crying out for A Libertarian stateless solution. There will not be peace as long as there is a state of Israel. The Zionists would be happy as they would still have access to the land of Israel and the Palestinians would not have a "state" to attack. Peace and commerce is necessary for long term prosperity.

I think if the state disappeared, it would not be long before democratic politics would simply divide the country again. In this scenario, all the wealth and the best public services would be in Jewish areas. Is a Civil War really any better than the present situation?

Dannyboy83

Make Jerusalem a free city like Dazing/Gdansk was.
Create an Israeli and a Palestinian state.

Probably a similar solution will be required in South Africa.

Flamed Diving

ei.sdraob wrote: »

AH Answer: Nothing that a couple of nukes couldnt solve

Politics Answer: Recognition of Palestine and EU membership for both, we were (are) quite deeply divided here in Ireland too, a bit of prosperity via a common market went a long way to solving our problems

I pre-empted the comparison with our fair isle, but it is quite wide of the mark, despite it's blunt similarities. The Protestants versus Catholics flavour of that conflict is not even remotely similar because both sides are not fighting to bring forth the return (or arrival) of their messiah as described in their holy books, where a certain deity has personally selected these lands as his chosen.

This isn't about some political dispute with a few hair-brained clergy, drug dealers, knee cappers, thrown in.

This is a war that God has commanded them to fight. It is written in scripture. God is silent on the Falls Road, for some reason.

silverharp

Denerick wrote: »

I think if the state disappeared, it would not be long before democratic politics would simply divide the country again. In this scenario, all the wealth and the best public services would be in Jewish areas. Is a Civil War really any better than the present situation?

democracies need taxation to fund armies and all the other good stuff. One of the prime laws of the area would have to be taxation is illegal and not enforcable in the courts.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ei.sdraob

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I pre-empted the comparison with our fair isle, but it is quite wide of the mark, despite it's blunt similarities. The Protestants versus Catholics flavour of that conflict is not even remotely similar because both sides are not fighting to bring forth the return (or arrival) of their messiah as described in their holy books, where a certain deity has personally selected these lands as his chosen.

This isn't about some political dispute with a few hair-brained clergy, drug dealers, knee cappers, thrown in.

This is a war that God has commanded them to fight. It is written in scripture. God is silent on the Falls Road, for some reason.

I understand, the comparison might not be to close since we dont have people who believe its their "god given right" to be walking around with machine guns and shoot the locals (i dont want to get any more into that since it would derail the thread)

I just think that any solution would be born out of prosperity and trade, and maybe time... basically what im trying to say if the people become more secular by caring more about consumerism or about protecting their investment and property and making a future for children, they (overall) would tend to be less bloodthristy

The reason I brought up the EU is that here we finally have a collection of states and people living in peace now, despite thousands of years of violent murder and war

something along same lines might work there too

or maybe not in that case give the nukes a shot

Moriarty

Jerusalem becomes a UN-backed protectorate statelet. Both Israel and the Palastinians can seat their governments there, but neither can claim sovereignty over the city. Introduce a workable two-state solution for the rest of the israeli/palastinian land.

Bitchslap the minorities on both sides when they don't play the game. Legitimate bitchslapping will finally be possible when the extremists on both sides are isolated and can be smothered out by the majority of people looking to live in peace, and with this will disappear the vast majority of outside funding and support to keep them going.

It would probably take a generation to properly cement, but it would be worth it.

Joey the lips

ei.sdraob wrote: »

AH Answer: Nothing that a couple of nukes couldnt solve

Politics Answer: Recognition of Palestine and EU membership for both, we were (are) quite deeply divided here in Ireland too, a bit of prosperity via a common market went a long way to solving our problems

Always my thought. However 2 problems there. You will not get palestine in the EU until turkey are in and Isreal dont reconise the UN so they are hardly likely to reconise the EU.

otherwise I reckon a communist Isreali govt will frighten the hell out of america and the palastinians will get it all.

Flamed Diving

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I understand, the comparison might not be to close since we dont have people who believe its their "god given right" to be walking around with machine guns and shoot the locals (i dont want to get any more into that since it would derail the thread)

I just think that any solution would be born out of prosperity and trade, and maybe time... basically what im trying to say if the people become more secular by caring more about consumerism or about protecting their investment and property and making a future for children, they (overall) would tend to be less bloodthristy

The reason I brought up the EU is that here we finally have a collection of states and people living in peace now, despite thousands of years of violent murder and war

something along same lines might work there too

or maybe not in that case give the nukes a shot

The EU took the most war-torn region in world history and turned it into a land where internal war is unthinkable, yeah, so I see your point.

ei.sdraob

Flamed Diving wrote: »

The EU took the most war-torn region in world history and turned it into a land where internal war is unthinkable, yeah, so I see your point.

Im not sure if you are being sarcastic

but yes,
whole of Europe was one large warn torn region with quite a bit of hate for each other spliced with all sorts of war/genocide/you name it,

all during the few thousand years in which that part of middle east was rather "quiet"

Flamed Diving

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Im not sure if you are being sarcastic

but yes,
whole of Europe was one large warn torn region with quite a bit of hate for each other spliced with all sorts of war/genocide/you name it,

all during the few thousand years in which that part of middle east was rather "quiet"

Nope, no sarcasm. New batteries for the detector, perhaps?

Now, was that last sentence sarcastic? Hmm, I think I know what you mean. But from around 1793 onwards, Europeans really raised the stakes on war.

wes

2 state solution along the lines of the Arab Peace plan or the Geneva Initative, or a bit of both.

Having said the above, I think it likely that Israels colonies make a 2 state solution impossible, or soon will. So if a 2 state solution is impossible, then a single Bi-National state, with equal rights for everyone regardless of race, religion etc.

Manic Moran

Until some level of trust is established between the two sides, it's going to be very difficult: You'd have to get both sides to agree to things they've no particular interest in.

Take the Gaza blockade, for example. The Israelis and Egyptians need to figure out a way of inspecting goods far more quickly to allow nearly uninhibited movement of goods into Gaza. On the other hand, out of deference to Israel's security desires, the walls should stay up with crossing restricted only to certain points. Neither is going to be overly popular.

NTM

TheDreamer

I don't think a one state solution is considered an option any one of the sides. The two state solution has been considered, negotiated, and a process towards that was started (by Rabin). This was when the Palestinians, under Arafat, were given an autonomy, and the land was devided into areas A, B and C (this was the first stage in the process). So if the two state solution has been discussed and worked on, why do you think it wasn't executed?
If a two state solution was worked out, what do you think should be decided regarding the Jewish settlers? And what do you think (if anything) should be decided regarding the Israeli Arabs?
Also, do you think a one sided withdrawal by Israel from all pre 1967 areas could be a solution to the conflict?

wes

TheDreamer wrote: »

I don't think a one state solution is considered an option any one of the sides.

Well, if the land can't be divided, than they will need to share. Basically a 2 state solution needs a viable Palestinian state, which seems more and more unlikely with each day imho. It isn't so much that either side wants it, but that if they keep carrying on as they have been, there actions will make a 1 state solution the only option. Also, a defacto single state already exists, seeing as Israel rules all the land involved.

TheDreamer wrote: »

The two state solution has been considered, negotiated, and a process towards that was started (by Rabin). This was when the Palestinians, under Arafat, were given an autonomy, and the land was devided into areas A, B and C (this was the first stage in the process). So if the two state solution has been discussed and worked on, why do you think it wasn't executed?

The death of Rabin, one sided support for Israel from the so called honest broker the US, and a failure in Palestinian leadership.

TheDreamer wrote: »

If a two state solution was worked out, what do you think should be decided regarding the Jewish settlers?

Well, they can either be removed, and return to there own country, or they can stay and live under Palestinian law, and Israel pay compensation for the land they took. Abbas even said that the settlers could stay, as long as they follow Palestinian law, so its not outside the realm of possibility.

TheDreamer wrote: »

And what do you think (if anything) should be decided regarding the Israeli Arabs?

Israel needs to treat them as equal citizens, and if they want to be a modern democracy, they need to be a state of all its citizens, and not a "Jewish" state, which is no different than the "Arab" states or the "Islamic" Republics.

TheDreamer wrote: »

Also, do you think a one sided withdrawal by Israel from all pre 1967 areas could be a solution to the conflict?

Yeah, it could work.

**EDIT**
Btw, what would your solution be?
**END EDIT**

TheDreamer

wes wrote: »

Israel needs to treat them as equal citizens, and if they want to be a modern democracy, they need to be a state of all its citizens, and not a "Jewish" state, which is no different than the "Arab" states or the "Islamic" Republics.

Just to be clear - Israeli Arabs are equal citizen of Israel and get all the rights the Jews and other groups get.

Yeah, it could work.

**EDIT**
Btw, what would your solution be?
**END EDIT**

Then why do you think it didn't work in Gaza after the one sided Israeli withdrawal? (This is off topic, but the one sided withdrawal failed in bringing peace to the Lebanese border also).

What is the solution in my opinion? I don't know, to be honest. I think this situation is too complicated and I don't think a solution is possible unless major changes in concepts and attitudes are made.

Stroke Politics

Two things - a slight modification in the staple diet of the two communities involved and a shed-load of money.

Edward de Bono is a supporter of more zinc in people's diet, as it makes one less irritable and belligerent. Yeast is a good source of zinc which is missing from unleavened bread such as pittas...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/de-bonos-marmite-plan-for-peace-in-middle-yeast-1133338.html

Second thing is money: give the Palestinians about €6B over 8 years to rebuild the critical infrastructure of their part of this area, educate their people and create work for them. Reduce the advance by €5m for each missile fired into Israeli territory....

wes

TheDreamer wrote: »

Just to be clear - Israeli Arabs are equal citizen of Israel and get all the rights the Jews and other groups get.

Except that is simply untrue. They are very much discriminated against.

You can read more from the US state department, and I chose them specifically, as they are Israels best buddy, and even they say they are discrimianted against, not to mention many Human Rights organizations, including Israeli ones:

2009 Human Rights Report: Israel and the occupied territories

--SNIP--
The government generally respected the human rights of its citizens, although there were problems in some areas. There were several high-profile cases involving corruption by political leaders. Institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against Arab citizens, Palestinian Arabs, non-Orthodox Jews, and other religious groups continued, as did societal discrimination against persons with disabilities. Women suffered societal discrimination and domestic violence. The government maintained unequal educational systems for Arab and Jewish students. While trafficking in persons for the purpose of prostitution greatly decreased in recent years, trafficking for the purpose of labor remained a problem, as did abuse of foreign workers.
--SNIP--

--SNIP--
During the year the Israel Land Fund NGO continued its program to purchase Arab land throughout Israel and market it to Jewish buyers, including in the diaspora; the organization claimed that all the land belonged to Jewish people and described as a "danger" the purchase of Jewish-owned lands by non-Jews.

Throughout 2008 and during the climax of the national election campaign in February, media and political incitement against the Israeli Arab community continued from members of the Knesset and high-profile party leaders, including Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, whose election campaign appeared to polarize relations between Arabs and Jews. Lieberman called one Israeli Arab member of Knesset a terrorist.
--SNIP--

If you look at Human Rights groups, even the Israeli ones, you will see them paint a far worse picture than the US State department. Basically, Israeli Arabs do not have equal rights, and never will as long as Zionists insist on a "Jewish" state, and are against a state of all its citizens.

Oh and here is another example of discrimination:
'Racist' marriage law upheld by Israel

TheDreamer wrote: »

Then why do you think it didn't work in Gaza after the one sided Israeli withdrawal? (This is off topic, but the one sided withdrawal failed in bringing peace to the Lebanese border also).

Oh, its very simple. They decided to grab more land in the West Bank instead, and they didn't really leave Gaza either, as Israel controls the air and the sea, and as such they are still occupying Gaza under International law, so they didn't really leave.

As for Lebanon, Israel still occupies the Sheba farms.

TheDreamer wrote: »

What is the solution in my opinion? I don't know, to be honest. I think this situation is too complicated and I don't think a solution is possible unless major changes in concepts and attitudes are made.

Fair enough.

Overheal

You have an Unstoppable Force/Immovable Object Scenario. Frankly, I don't think Modern politics Or modern warfare help this situation at all. You wanna get pragmatic: Centuries ago these 2 sides would have battled it out already and one of them would have been erased from history. Its human nature that has been disrupted by Global Politics and Mutually Assured Destruction.

TheDreamer

TheDreamer wrote: »

I've seen a few threads here that have to do, with one way or another, with Israel and the Palestinians. A lot of criticism has been written. Lots of accusations. A lot of words on what is done wrong.
My question is, what do you think is the permenant long term solution to this conflict? What would you do to end this conflict once and for all?

The simple fact is that there will be never peace in that region as long as Israel exists. Regardless of the nations in the region, the different Arab peoples will never accept Israel being there. There's been too much blood spilled, and too much religious dogma thrown about. The UN would not be trusted, since its seen to be a paper bag of western initiatives. The two state deal would still have the problem of Israel existing and being a target for Arab aggression even if they managed to keep their own military ambitions in check, which i doubt possible.

There is no answer. As Overheal said it probably would have been solved decades ago if civilisation hadn't advanced to this level.

Its worth noting that even if Israel was to disappear there's nothing to suggest that you wouldn't continue to have violence in the region. Palestine was occupied by other Arab nations. There's no huge amount of trust between the different countries, and with many different religious background/agenda's its likely that they would fight amongst themselves anyway.

There is no realistic answer.

Ping Chow Chi

If you gave all the people in the occupied territories a vote in elections in Israel, until such a time that they had their own state. I think this might speed things up a tad.

Though I think it may already be too late for a two state solution, Israel has probably took too much land already.

Nodin

Deleted User wrote: »

The simple fact is that there will be never peace in that region as long as Israel exists. Regardless of the nations in the region, the different Arab peoples will never accept Israel being there.

...except for the fact they've agreed to recognise Israel, under certain conditions....

anymore

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well curiously enough Hamas also share the vision of a one State solution of rthis region incorporating all of Israel and Palestine but the question of equal rights is in doubt. However as the thread is about solutions, then I will try to be positive. A period in which Jerusalem or part of it is in or under UN control might be helpful.

And i wonder if the Irish peace Process has any lessons or guidelines in this situation ?

SeanW

For there to be peace in Israel and Palestine, IMHO BOTH sides need to take firm action, and in concert.

1. The Israelis need to withdraw to the '67 borders, or negotiate with the Palestinian people for any extra territory outside of them.
2. The Palestinians need to stop preaching hatred against Jews.
3. Jerusalem should either be divided by the belligerants, shared by them, or administered by neither: either being an independent city or run by a neutral 3rd party, like Switzerland.

While one side could lay down the framework (either Israel, by unilaterally withdrawing to its own terriotory, or the Palestinians, by offering to end the violence and recognise Israel's right to exist if the land grabs are reversed)

But in real terms someone needs to get them both and knock some heads together, which is all I would try to do.

anymore

Manic Moran wrote: »

Until some level of trust is established between the two sides, it's going to be very difficult: You'd have to get both sides to agree to things they've no particular interest in.

Take the Gaza blockade, for example. The Israelis and Egyptians need to figure out a way of inspecting goods far more quickly to allow nearly uninhibited movement of goods into Gaza. On the other hand, out of deference to Israel's security desires, the walls should stay up with crossing restricted only to certain points. Neither is going to be overly popular.

NTM

Good points. One big question is how to deal with third countries such as iran who see they have some stake in this area.

The Saint

As I have stated before, the Geneva Accord is a very good basis for a peace agreement which has the support of the majority of Palestinians and Israelis as illustrated in polls. It deals with all the major issues in the conflict including borders, refugees, religious sites and Jerusalem.

This would also allow Israel to keep most of it's large settlements along the Green Line in return for some Israeli land to be transferred to the Palestinians. However, when the initiative was launched in 2003 Sharon nearly had a fit. Here's the map of the proposed borders.


Larger map can be found here.

This, in conjunction with the 2002 Arab Peace initiative, would law the basis for a regional peace accepted by everyone. Of course the issue of the Golan Heights would need to be resolved in line with the Arab Peace Initiative.

I think this is a very good and viable solution to the conflict. If only the politicians followed the will of their peoples then there would be a very real prospect for a true peace.

TheDreamer

The Saint wrote: »

As I have stated before, the Geneva Accord is a very good basis for a peace agreement which has the support of the majority of Palestinians and Israelis as illustrated in polls. It deals with all the major issues in the conflict including borders, refugees, religious sites and Jerusalem.

This would also allow Israel to keep most of it's large settlements along the Green Line in return for some Israeli land to be transferred to the Palestinians. However, when the initiative was launched in 2003 Sharon nearly had a fit.

If I remember correctly, the "right of return" issue was the biggest obstacle, for obvious and understandable reasons (if the Palestinians are getting their own state, why do they need to be citizens of the Israeli state?). The Palestinians also had a problem with that because they wanted a right of return for all Palestinians, and that's just unacceptable.

The Saint

TheDreamer wrote: »

If I remember correctly, the "right of return" issue was the biggest obstacle, for obvious and understandable reasons (if the Palestinians are getting their own state, why do they need to be citizens of the Israeli state?). The Palestinians also had a problem with that because they wanted a right of return for all Palestinians, and that's just unacceptable.

Here's the Article that deals with the issue of the settlement of refugees:

Choice of Permanent Place of Residence (PPR)

The solution to the PPR aspect of the refugee problem shall entail an act of informed choice on the part of the refugee to be exercised in accordance with the options and modalities set forth in this agreement. PPR options from which the refugees may choose shall be as follows;

i.The state of Palestine, in accordance with clause a below.

ii.Areas in Israel being transferred to Palestine in the land swap, following assumption of Palestinian sovereignty, in accordance with clause a below.

iii.Third Countries, in accordance with clause b below.

iv.The state of Israel, in accordance with clause c below.

v.Present Host countries, in accordance with clause d below.

1.PPR options i and ii shall be the right of all Palestinian refugees and shall be in accordance with the laws of the State of Palestine.

2.Option iii shall be at the sovereign discretion of third countries and shall be in accordance with numbers that each third country will submit to the International Commission. These numbers shall represent the total number of Palestinian refugees that each third country shall accept.

3.Option iv shall be at the sovereign discretion of Israel and will be in accordance with a number that Israel will submit to the International Commission. This number shall represent the total number of Palestinian refugees that Israel shall accept. As a basis, Israel will consider the average of the total numbers submitted by the different third countries to the International Commission.

4.Option v shall be in accordance with the sovereign discretion of present host countries. Where exercised this shall be in the context of prompt and extensive development and rehabilitation programs for the refugee communities

This effectively means that Israel could choose the number of refugees that it would be willing to settle in Israel, likely to be a token number.

I can't imagine many refugees wanting to settle in Israel since they would have established their lives in host countries with their compensation for land and propoerty lost. Obviously this isn't going to make everyone happy on both sides but it seems like a pragmatic solution to the problem.

TheDreamer

The Saint wrote: »

Here's the Article that deals with the issue of the settlement of refugees:


This effectively means that Israel could choose the number of refugees that it would be willing to settle in Israel, likely to be a token number.

I can't imagine many refugees wanting to settle in Israel since they would have established their lives in host countries with their compensation for land and propoerty lost. Obviously this isn't going to make everyone happy on both sides but it seems like a pragmatic solution to the problem.

The whole idea behind the two state solution is to give the Palestinians a homeland. Why, then, should even one be given citizenship under the "right of return"? Would you support the same action with the European Jews?

The Saint

TheDreamer wrote: »

The whole idea behind the two state solution is to give the Palestinians a homeland. Why, then, should even one be given citizenship under the "right of return"? Would you support the same action with the European Jews?

None of this negates the right that Palestinians have to return to their land. All Palestinians technically have the right to return to their homes in Israel. This is a compromise where a few will settle there (if any indeed want to). Also, Jews are given an automatic right of return to Israel irrespective of any connection with the place.

Yes, I would support the same right for European Jews who were expelled during WWII if they chose to exercise that right. They already recieve reparations for land and property lost, unlike the Palestinians.

TheDreamer

The Saint wrote: »

None of this negates the right that Palestinians have to return to their land. All Palestinians technically have the right to return to their homes in Israel. This is a compromise where a few will settle there (if any indeed want to). Also, Jews are given an automatic right of return to Israel irrespective of any connection with the place.

The Palestinians will have a right to return to their homes? And what will they do when they get there?
Jews are given automatic right to citizenship, because Israel is a Jewish state. Each country has a different criteria for rights to citizenship. Israel has hers.

Yes, I would support the same right for European Jews who were expelled during WWII if they chose to exercise that right. They already recieve reparations for land and property lost, unlike the Palestinians.

Not Jews who were expelled. Jews who fled, Jews who were expelled, Jews who left after the war to make Aliya or move to another country. And their children. And their grandchildren. If there are about 6 million Jews in Israel now, another few millions in the US, and I don't know how many everywhere else, then that makes at least a few millions of Jews eligable to get European citizenships. Several millions of people who get European citizenships, go to the houses in Europe where their parents/grandparents lived, ask those who live there now to leave, and move in. That sounds good?

Nodin

No one is realistically expecting people to leave houses within Israel, nor would any such agreement be reached.

And yes, a right of return to Europe would be fair enough. The loss of so many of Europes intellectual elite to death and exile was one of the great tragedys of WWII.

The Saint

TheDreamer wrote: »

The Palestinians will have a right to return to their homes? And what will they do when they get there?

Go about their business I suppose. I'm not sure what you mean by the question.

TheDreamer wrote: »

Jews are given automatic right to citizenship, because Israel is a Jewish state. Each country has a different criteria for rights to citizenship. Israel has hers.

Yes, Israel has its own criteria but that still doesn't negate the Palestinian refugees right of return. You might not like it but that's the way it is. I don't know why you're making a big deal out of this. It will be a token number that will have no demographic impact on Israel.

TheDreamer wrote: »

Not Jews who were expelled. Jews who fled, Jews who were expelled, Jews who left after the war to make Aliya or move to another country. And their children. And their grandchildren. If there are about 6 million Jews in Israel now, another few millions in the US, and I don't know how many everywhere else, then that makes at least a few millions of Jews eligable to get European citizenships. Several millions of people who get European citizenships, go to the houses in Europe where their parents/grandparents lived, ask those who live there now to leave, and move in. That sounds good?

If they left of their own free will that's a completely different situation. They're not comparable. If they were citizens of a European country and were forced to leave then they should be allowed back.

dvpower

TheDreamer wrote: »

My question is, what do you think is the permenant long term solution to this conflict?

• Two state solution with borders based on the '67 borders with some limited changes to cater for 'facts on the ground' (some of the larger settlements close to the border) in return for some Israeli land and a land corridor with Gaza.
• Very limited 'right to return' for a small number of Palestinians. Monetary compensation for others. A 'right to stay' for Israeli settlers who wish to stay in settlements (obviously under Palestinian rule). Relocation assistance for those who want to return to Israel.
• Acknowledgement of the right to exist of each state by the other (and by other 'interested' countries in the region). A commitment to peaceful means to be made by all parties.
• A phased release of all Palestinian political prisoners who sign up to peaceful means.
• Each state to enact Bill of Rights type legislation guaranteeing equality, religious freedom etc.
• Jerusalem to have a special designation. Controlled by a power sharing authority with international oversight. Both states could establish their capitals there.
• A massive international fund to support the Palestinian state and cross border peace initiatives.
• A free trade area and other initiatives to encourage trade / business cooperation.
• An international disputes resolution body to deal with any breaches of agreements and other contentious issues, water rights etc.

TheDreamer

I wrote you a detailed reply yesterday but it was deleted and I was too tired to write it again. I'll try to answer now.

wes wrote: »

Except that is simply untrue. They are very much discriminated against.

You can read more from the US state department, and I chose them specifically, as they are Israels best buddy, and even they say they are discrimianted against, not to mention many Human Rights organizations, including Israeli ones:



If you look at Human Rights groups, even the Israeli ones, you will see them paint a far worse picture than the US State department. Basically, Israeli Arabs do not have equal rights, and never will as long as Zionists insist on a "Jewish" state, and are against a state of all its citizens.

Oh and here is another example of discrimination:
'Racist' marriage law upheld by Israel

I didn't say there wasn't discrimination. I said Arab Israelis are citizens and have all same rights as the Jewish citizens.
Some relevant Israeli laws are:
1. Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty
2. Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation
3. Basic Law: Israel Lands
The world is full of discrimination, of all kinds. When an 18 year old Israel girl wanted to become a combat pilot, the army said no, because they don't allow women to become pilots. She apealed to the supreme court, and won. When a gay couple wanted to be recognized by the state as a couple, they apealed to the supreme court, and won. Same with the Arabs. If they feel discriminated against, they can take leagal actions and if the law that grants them equal rights was broken, they will win. That's what having equal rights mean.
Some examples of court rulings regarding law suits about discrimination of Arabs:
1. Isra-Air had to compensate Arabs for discrimination in security checks.
2. Arab employees of the Israeli train company were fired because they didn't serve in the army (some jobs in Israel require a full military service). The court cancelled the dismissal.
3. An Arab couple wanted to by land in a town and were denied by the town council. The court ruled the couple can buy the land.

Oh, its very simple. They decided to grab more land in the West Bank instead, and they didn't really leave Gaza either, as Israel controls the air and the sea, and as such they are still occupying Gaza under International law, so they didn't really leave.

As for Lebanon, Israel still occupies the Sheba farms.

What land was "grabbed"?
I understand that you prefer that Israel completely detaches herself from Gaza? So who will supply them with water? Electricity? And who will make sure they don't bring in from the sea and air more weapons to use against Israel?

Regarding Lebanon, I have to say your reply is disappointing, especially since even the UN has certified that the withdrawal from South Lebanon was completed by Israel.

wes

TheDreamer wrote: »

I wrote you a detailed reply yesterday but it was deleted and I was too tired to write it again. I'll try to answer now.

Fair enough.

TheDreamer wrote: »

I didn't say there wasn't discrimination. I said Arab Israelis are citizens and have all same rights as the Jewish citizens.

I showed you racist laws, and practices, which mean Palestinains with Israelis citizenship don't have equal rights.

TheDreamer wrote: »

Some relevant Israeli laws are:
1. Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty
2. Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation
3. Basic Law: Israel Lands
The world is full of discrimination, of all kinds. When an 18 year old Israel girl wanted to become a combat pilot, the army said no, because they don't allow women to become pilots. She apealed to the supreme court, and won. When a gay couple wanted to be recognized by the state as a couple, they apealed to the supreme court, and won. Same with the Arabs. If they feel discriminated against, they can take leagal actions and if the law that grants them equal rights was broken, they will win. That's what having equal rights mean.

Some examples of court rulings regarding law suits about discrimination of Arabs:
1. Isra-Air had to compensate Arabs for discrimination in security checks.
2. Arab employees of the Israeli train company were fired because they didn't serve in the army (some jobs in Israel require a full military service). The court cancelled the dismissal.
3. An Arab couple wanted to by land in a town and were denied by the town council. The court ruled the couple can buy the land.

A few positive court deicisions, doesn't change the multiple examples of the inequality in Israeli society towards Arabs. Look at the US state department link. It clearly show that Arabs don't have equal access to jobs, education, and land. Then there is the racist marriage law as well. Israel does not afford equal rights to Arabs. Ignoring inconvenient facts, doesn't make them go away, especially when even the US condemns Israel treatment of Arabs.

TheDreamer wrote: »

What land was "grabbed"?

In the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which is happening right now, and is covered by most news sources in the world, documented by multiple governments and multiple Human Rights organizations. I find it very odd that you are unaware of Israels constant land theft.

TheDreamer wrote: »

I understand that you prefer that Israel completely detaches herself from Gaza? So who will supply them with water? Electricity? And who will make sure they don't bring in from the sea and air more weapons to use against Israel?

All valid questions, but it doesn't change the fact that Israel never left Gaza now does it? That is the claim you made, and it is simply untrue. Israel never left Gaza, and under international law is still an occupier, and is still stealing land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and as I said earlier this is why the "leaving" Gaza didn't work, as they didn't actually leave at all.

For there to be a solution, the Palestinians, have to have a state, and not a Bantustan, that Isreal tried to create in Gaza. So, this mean access to the sea and there own air space, and the ability to build there own infrastructure to create there own electrcity. Water rights will have to be negotiatied between the 2 parties.

As for weapons, well if Israel gets to arm themselves to the teeth so does the other guy, both sides have the right to security, and not just Israel. The Palestinians have plenty of reason to fear Israeli aggression. Personally, a better solution would be for both sides to have minimal weapon imports.

TheDreamer wrote: »

Regarding Lebanon, I have to say your reply is disappointing, especially since even the UN has certified that the withdrawal from South Lebanon was completed by Israel.

Why do you find it disappointing? The Sheba farms are still occupied by Israel. This is very well known. I really don't understand why you have an issue with this fact.

Israel also regularly invades Lebanons air space, and has even kidnapped Lebanese citizens (innocent farmers) in cross border raids. There hardly in a position to claim to be any better than the other guy. As I said above, for there to be peace, both sides need to cut the crap out.

TheDreamer

wes wrote: »

I showed you racist laws, and practices, which mean Palestinains with Israelis citizenship don't have equal rights.

A few positive court deicisions, doesn't change the multiple examples of the inequality in Israeli society towards Arabs. Look at the US state department link. It clearly show that Arabs don't have equal access to jobs, education, and land. Then there is the racist marriage law as well. Israel does not afford equal rights to Arabs. Ignoring inconvenient facts, doesn't make them go away, especially when even the US condemns Israel treatment of Arabs.

I have nothing new to add to this. I stand behind what I said - Israeli Arabs are equal citizens and can sue if they're discriminated against (just as other can, such as women, gays, handicapped people, etc). Before we start repeating ourselves, I'm not going to comment any further. If you're interested in reading more on court rulings regarding discrimination (in general, or specifically regarding Arabs) let me know and I'll try to find links for you.

In the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which is happening right now, and is covered by most news sources in the world, documented by multiple governments and multiple Human Rights organizations. I find it very oddd that you are unaware of Israels constant land theft.

You're talking about building of houses in settlements? I thought you were talking about occupying new lands. Yea, the settlements are a big problem. Probably Israel's biggest problem. Most Israelis will tell you the same thing. Most don't like the existance of settlements in the West Bank. By the way, when the right wing radicals try to form new holdings, the army disassembles them, by force.

All valid questions, but it doesn't change the fact that Israel never left Gaza now does it? That is the claim you made, and it is simply untrue. Israel never left Gaza, and under international law is still an occupier, and is still stealing land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and as I said earlier this is why the "leaving" Gaza didn't work, as they didn't actually leave at all.

Israel evacutated Gaza from all civilians and soldiers. What else do you think Israel should do now, that will not endanger her security, considering that there's no agreement with the Palestinians?

Why do you find it disappointing? The Sheba farms are still occupied by Israel. This is very well known. I really don't understand why you have an issue with this fact.

This area was occupied in 1967, from Syria, during the 6 Day War. Not from Lebanon. Neither Lebanon nor Hizballa (under the sponsership of Iran) have any claims over it.

TheDreamer

The Saint wrote: »

Go about their business I suppose. I'm not sure what you mean by the question.

If they're only given the right to return to their homes, what will they do in Israel? The wouldn't be able to work..

Yes, Israel has its own criteria but that still doesn't negate the Palestinian refugees right of return. You might not like it but that's the way it is. I don't know why you're making a big deal out of this. It will be a token number that will have no demographic impact on Israel.

This is simply unacceptable. Israel can't afford giving citizenship to Palestinians who claim to have been expelled (most of them, by the way, fled without even seeing an Israeli soldier. They were promised by the Arab leaders to be "brought back as winners", or something of that sort, and so they left of free will, thinking they'll return).
Those who stayed, got citizenships.

If they left of their own free will that's a completely different situation. They're not comparable. If they were citizens of a European country and were forced to leave then they should be allowed back.

Jews weren't forced to leave Europe. They were led to death camps. The lucky ones fled. If those who fled don't have a right to citizenship, why should it be different in Israel?

wes

TheDreamer wrote: »

I have nothing new to add to this. I stand behind what I said - Israeli Arabs are equal citizens and can sue if they're discriminated against (just as other can, such as women, gays, handicapped people, etc). Before we start repeating ourselves, I'm not going to comment any further. If you're interested in reading more on court rulings regarding discrimination (in general, or specifically regarding Arabs) let me know and I'll try to find links for you.

I simply disagree, as do Israeli Human Rights groups, as well Arabs in Israel. I have read multiple sources on this, and have come to the conclusion, that they do not have equal rights.

TheDreamer wrote: »

You're talking about building of houses in settlements? I thought you were talking about occupying new lands. Yea, the settlements are a big problem. Probably Israel's biggest problem. Most Israelis will tell you the same thing. Most don't like the existance of settlements in the West Bank. By the way, when the right wing radicals try to form new holdings, the army disassembles them, by force.

Israel is constantly expanding settlements, which means they take more land. This is well known, and illegal under International law, and seeing as this is land conflict. taking more land will exacerbate the conflict.

Israel is also destroying Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem as well.

Also, getting rid of a few hill top caravans, are a nice showy measure, but the main problem is that the government of Israel supports the illegal settlement with plenty of cash, and offers incentives for there citizens to move into them. It isn't just the radicals, but the Israeli government who are deeply involved withe settlement project.

TheDreamer wrote: »

Israel evacutated Gaza from all civilians and soldiers. What else do you think Israel should do now, that will not endanger her security, considering that there's no agreement with the Palestinians?

Israel has turned Gaza into a prison, and engaged in collective punishment of 1.5 million people, which is illegal in international law, and is no better than when Hamas indiscriminately attacks civilians. They need to end that asap.

Israel needs to kick off a peace process and stop stealing land if they want security, and that mean a proper freeze on all settlements. The absurd dream of a greater Israel is not compatible with security. They can't expect security all the while engaged in aggression themselves.

TheDreamer wrote: »

This area was occupied in 1967, from Syria, during the 6 Day War. Not from Lebanon. Neither Lebanon nor Hizballa (under the sponsership of Iran) have any claims over it.

Syria dropped all claims to it, and have said it is Lebanese terrirtory.

wes

TheDreamer wrote: »

This is simply unacceptable. Israel can't afford giving citizenship to Palestinians who claim to have been expelled (most of them, by the way, fled without even seeing an Israeli soldier. They were promised by the Arab leaders to be "brought back as winners", or something of that sort, and so they left of free will, thinking they'll return).
Those who stayed, got citizenships.

Well that is untrue. israel engaged in deliberate ethnic cleansing to create a Jewish state. This is well established historical fact at this point, there is really no point in engaging in denialism. Israel was created via the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous populace, and it is nothing short of hypocritical, that they still deny this simple historical fact.

A small token return of Palestinian is hardly asking for a lot, and for you claim it is unacceptable is pretty ridiculous, as such a return will have no real impact on Israel. At the end of the day, Israel drove the Palestinians out of there homes, for being the wrong race, a small token return is not going to change the demographic balance. Israel can easily afford to allow the return of a small number of Palestinian refugee's.

dvpower

wes wrote: »

Israel can easily afford to allow the return of a small number of Palestinian refugee's.

Not to mention the fact that in any two state solution, Palestine would be expected to absorb numbers of Israeli settlers who weren't returning to Israel.

Scrambled egg

I know it sounds crazy and highly unlikely the Israeli's would agree to it ,I believe that a solution would be a federation of 2 states, Israel and Palestine with the capital in Jerusulam treated as an independent city by both of them. It might appeal to the moderates and if it works then there could even be a successful multi-religious country .

But sure common sense can't prevail when religion is brought into the mix. :rolleyes:

TheDreamer

wes wrote: »

I simply disagree, as do Israeli Human Rights groups, as well Arabs in Israel. I have read multiple sources on this, and have come to the conclusion, that they do not have equal rights.

You're repeating yourself again. I prefer not to repeat myself.

Israel is constantly expanding settlements, which means they take more land. This is well known, and illegal under International law, and seeing as this is land conflict. taking more land will exacerbate the conflict.

Israel is also destroying Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem as well.

Also, getting rid of a few hill top caravans, are a nice showy measure, but the main problem is that the government of Israel supports the illegal settlement with plenty of cash, and offers incentives for there citizens to move into them. It isn't just the radicals, but the Israeli government who are deeply involved withe settlement project.

You're arguing with the wrong person about the settlements. As I said, I think they're probably Israel's biggest problem. I also know that many and probably most Israelis think the same.
I don't know what you're basing your claim that the Israeli government supports building of illegal holdings on. From what I know, you're wrong.
Israeli government has a huge problem with the settlers and settlements. What insentives are you talking about? Tax reduction? Those are given to citizens of the far north (if I'm not mistaken) and the Sderot area. Also Eilat. All are within green lines, so this is hardly proof that Israel is encouraging people to move to settlements.

Israel has turned Gaza into a prison, and engaged in collective punishment of 1.5 million people, which is illegal in international law, and is no better than when Hamas indiscriminately attacks civilians. They need to end that asap.

Israel needs to kick off a peace process and stop stealing land if they want security, and that mean a proper freeze on all settlements. The absurd dream of a greater Israel is not compatible with security. They can't expect security all the while engaged in aggression themselves.

You're not answering my questions. And please don't make it sound like all the blame for the failure of the peace negotiations through out the years on Israel. "Israel needs to kick off a peace process"? It takes two to tango.

Syria dropped all claims to it, and have said it is Lebanese terrirtory.

Why would Syria do that?

TheDreamer

wes wrote: »

Well that is untrue. israel engaged in deliberate ethnic cleansing to create a Jewish state. This is well established historical fact at this point, there is really no point in engaging in denialism. Israel was created via the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous populace, and it is nothing short of hypocritical, that they still deny this simple historical fact.

Israel has never engaged in ethnic cleansing. During the War of Independence most Arabs fled without even coming across an Israeli soldier. They fled because they were afraid of retaliation attack for the attacks they carried out against Jews, and because they were promissed by the Arab countries that the Jews will be beaten and they'll be able to return as winners. The Israelis didn't try to stop them from fleeing but certainly not engaged in "ethnic cleansing".
Even today, when Israel attacks in populated areas (Hamas and Islamic Jihad are very fond of carrying out attack from civilian areas, for example, schools, people's houses, etc.) it warns the citizens that an attack is coming and they should evacuate.

A small token return of Palestinian is hardly asking for a lot, and for you claim it is unacceptable is pretty ridiculous, as such a return will have no real impact on Israel. At the end of the day, Israel drove the Palestinians out of there homes, for being the wrong race, a small token return is not going to change the demographic balance. Israel can easily afford to allow the return of a small number of Palestinian refugee's.

My claim is not ridiculous. There's no reason to give any Palestinian Israeli citizenship if they have their own state.