A one state solution will see a genocide? How'd you figure that one out then?
(I support a two-state solution btw).
Israeli - Palestinian Conflict
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
A one state solution will see a genocide? How'd you figure that one out then?
(I support a two-state solution btw).
Jews will be a minority in a one-state solution. We all know how minorities are treated under Muslim Arab rule. Add to the mix the century-long violent conflict, and you'd be naive at best if you suggest this could work.
No wonder you believe in the one-state solution.
They seemed to be OK under Ottoman rule, but that's neither here nor there.
But again I'm not advocating a one-state solution, I think hostilities are far too toxic for that to be a feasible prospect. Two state solution.
You are Zionists. Not Jews. Big difference. Most Israeli's are Zionists.
Most Israeli's are Jews.
I agree only with the second part.
I agree.
Putting all other valid arguments aside, this is also a good argument for acknowledging a Jewish state as part of this two-state solution. Stability will only be achieved when the national aspirations of the two peoples are fulfilled in separate states. The so-called "right of return" would only serve to maintain instability, and is a testimony for a dishonest approach regarding a future peaceful co-existence.
A non-Jewish Israel and a non-Islamic Palestine is what I advocate. Ensures minorities in both respective nations are protected.
Incidentally, would you support the Palestinian right of return in a Jewish Israel?
Neither is going to happen though. Arab states are all Muslim, with the exception of the complicated mechanism in Lebanon (which did not stop a massive Christian immigration away from the country). At the same time, if you think it's feasable for Jews to compromise their national self-determination then you've lost contact with reality.
A right of return to Jewish Israel would undermine Jewish Israel. Descendants of 1940's refugees should settle in a Palestinian territory and not an Israeli territory if the real motive behind an agreement is stability. Jews will not go back from Israel to Allepo and Baghdad, and Arabs will not flood the pre-1967 borders of Israel. For the sake of stability, if not anything else.
Last edited:
Ban ki moon calls what Israel as done as a criminal act and Cameron stays silent ,says everything.`
A two-state solution with the boarders of 1967 wont happen either. If Israel would really consider this as an viable option, they wouldnt build new settlements in the westbank on a daily basis. Over 350.000 jewish settlers are living in the westbank (in total there are over 650k jewish settlers in contested areas). In comparison to that: There were about 9000 settlers in Gaza. Its possible to relocate 9000 people but its impossible to to relocate 100k+.
So whats the reality? When Israel talks about a two state solution, they talk about a de-facto jewish state, that owns 90%+ of the territory and a Palestinian state that owns a small rest. Combined with the fact, that Israel wont allow too many Palestinians, to live in israel, thats only possible with a policy of expulsion.
Putting Gaza aside, if you are honestly supporting a two-state solution, you have to oppose the policy of your government on almost every level. You already wrote somewhere that you vote for Likud (correct me if I am wrong about that), which contradicts everything you say about a two state solution, because they are activly pushing for more settlements in the westbank.
Ban ki moon is a hypocritical piece of shit. He's been criticising Israel none stop yet so much evidence came out when Sri Lanka was committing its war crimes and butchering 10s of thousands of its own people, he said and did nothing.
The man has absolutely no credibility.
Not true. A map has been presented to the Palestinians where large settlements remain in areas to be annexed by Israel, and in return the Palestinians would get areas west of the 1967 line. That would keep most settlers under Israeli rule, and the rest of the settlements would be evacuated. A rough idea of a possible territorial agreement appears in the map of Olmert's (formerly a Likud member) plan, turned down by the Palestinians. I'm not good at maths, but what I can definitely see here is that there is no support for your 90%+ argument.
I vote for the Likud, which is led by Benjamin Netanyahu that accepted a two-state solution. I have to admit, though, that Benjamin Netanyahu faces firm opposition from within his own party by people who argue that the Gaza experiment suggests that a repeat in the WB eould be a catastrophy. And who could blame them?
Expect a two-wrongs-don't-make-it-right barrage. You're fecked.
1. The 1967 borders are not borders at all. They are armistice lines from the failed Arab war of that year. Prior to that, Jordan and Egypt illegally held onto Gaza and the 'West Bank'. Interestingly, the PLO never demanded a Palestinian State from either 'occupier' when it was in their hands..
2. The settlements are not illegal (bar the ones Israel deems as such). The ONLY ratified document pertaining to Jewish settlement actually endorses this is the much ignored San Remo Conference when the Principal Allied Powers agreed to assign the Mandate for the territory of Palestine to Great Britain. Article 6 of the Mandate "encouraged … close settlement by Jews on the land," including the lands of Judea, Samaria (=West Bank) and Gaza. This has never been revoked and is still valid as you read this.
Clearly, should their be any negotiations leading to a Palestine State, land swaps will/should be based upon both strategic depth and compensation from both sides.
And before Kaos jumps down my throat, yes, Jordan MUST be party to this and put some skin (land) in the game, given it encompasses 80% of Palestine. Another conveniently ignored fact.
Nothing else will work.
Not true. A map has been presented to the Palestinians where large settlements remain in areas to be annexed by Israel, and in return the Palestinians would get areas west of the 1967 line. That would keep most settlers under Israeli rule, and the rest of the settlements would be evacuated. A rough idea of a possible territorial agreement appears in the map of Olmert's (formerly a Likud member) plan, turned down by the Palestinians. I'm not good at maths, but what I can definitely see here is that there is no support for your 90%+ argument.
I vote for the Likud, which is led by Benjamin Netanyahu that accepted a two-state solution. I have to admit, though, that Benjamin Netanyahu faces firm opposition from within his own party by people who argue that the Gaza experiment suggests that a repeat in the WB eould be a catastrophy. And who could blame them?
Olmerts´s "convergence plan" from 2006 is not part of Likud policy anymore. So I understand why you supported this party, but they changed their ideas. Polls suggested that the majority of israel (60-70%) opposed this idea. Since 2006 there are about 70k new settlers in the westbank. So abandoning jewish settlements in the is off the table. No current likud politician would suggest that, because its terrible unpopular in Israel.
LINK to a Map
I quite liked the late Sharon; he understood the basic logic of this conflict. I think there would be peace between Israel and Palestinia, if he wouldnt have had his stroke. Thats a real tragedy.
@Fearless
i didnt use the term "illegal settlements". I am just saying that the Israeli government is not interested in a Palestinian state in the (non official) boarders of 1967 (or any comparable area). Again I am not emotionally involved in this and I am not throwing around moral judgement. I am just trying to talk about facts and causation.
Last edited:
A two state solution should actually be the only logical solution.
And BTW who would want to live as a minority in a Muslim State unless its Dubai in UAE?
And BTW who would want to live as a minority in a Muslim State unless its Dubai in UAE?
We're going to go around in circles again regarding the case for a religious state.
Not true. A map has been presented to the Palestinians where large settlements remain in areas to be annexed by Israel, and in return the Palestinians would get areas west of the 1967 line. That would keep most settlers under Israeli rule, and the rest of the settlements would be evacuated. A rough idea of a possible territorial agreement appears in the map of Olmert's (formerly a Likud member) plan, turned down by the Palestinians. I'm not good at maths, but what I can definitely see here is that there is no support for your 90%+ argument.
I vote for the Likud, which is led by Benjamin Netanyahu that accepted a two-state solution. I have to admit, though, that Benjamin Netanyahu faces firm opposition from within his own party by people who argue that the Gaza experiment suggests that a repeat in the WB eould be a catastrophy. And who could blame them?
East Jerusalem annexed to the Israelis? Not a chance.
Of course the settlements are illegal. The legal benchmark isn't set by Israel.
An interesting and more optimistic read from journalist Paul Mason reporting from Gaza. He makes a point which I strongly agree with - and thats Egypt choosing to close the Rafah border has a more detrimental effect than the Gaza-Israel border being closed. But that's not to say both the Rafah border and siege of Gaza shouldn't be lifted.
Gaza is not as I expected. Amid the terror, there is hope
The world is not so blessed that it can afford to waste the lives of the 1.8 million Palestinians who live there
Everyday life in Gaza is becoming impossible. Photograph: Majdi Fathi/NurPhoto/Corbis
I have been reporting from Gaza all week, and, amid the stream of dead and injured civilians wheeled on trolleys before me, frantic people gesturing in my face, and nights spent in an unlit city under bombardment, I've come to a conclusion I did not expect: Gaza "works".
What I mean is that, given resources, connections with the outside world, and time, this narrow political entity could function normally. With its smooth sand, blue sea and skies, it could even become a tourist destination. It already has a massive pool of trained and educated human capital – though, sadly, its most expert people are trauma surgeons. As it is, hotels stand deserted along the beachfront in Gaza City. Their embarrassed waiters struggle to boil coffee on single flames. The fishermen in the port sneak out maybe 20 yards in canoes, while hostilities are on, 100 yards in motor boats during the sporadic ceasefires.
Everyday life, even for those with money and friends in the west, is becoming impossible. Water queues form, petrol stations are empty. Equally unnerving, for the young, urbanised kids, the internet is sporadic. I met two women – educated professionals: the top floor of their apartment block had been demolished by an Israeli rocket. Now they, too, were in the world of queues, poor hygiene, homelessness. A decent handbag does not exempt you. The currency is the shekel, but the biggest concern is gold. Palestinians keep their wealth in gold and jewellery. Around 250,000 people have been displaced and moving into a packed and filthy school, to sleep alongside the donkeys of the poor, does not strike people with gold as any better than staying and waiting for the shells to hit.
Gaza works because of Gaza's people. Since Hamas took control in 2007, the place has been run by a group designated as terrorist, and under Islamic rule. Unable to rebuild after the Israeli invasion of 2008-9, they instead built tunnels – nobody knows how long – in which the military wing of Hamas, the Qassam Brigades, live, store their rockets and fight. The tunnels are also used to bring in the essential supplies that have been banned during the seven-year siege of Gaza.
Strangely, then, for much of the day, you see the place as it might be if Hamas did not exist. Non-Hamas police keep order; women without hijabs move around as freely as the women in full veil; doctors returned from Germany and Canada saw the shattered bones of youths who have lived and may die in this small strip of land. And two-thirds of the population skip and play and wrestle – for they are children.
When this war is over, nothing good will happen in Gaza until the seige and blockade are lifted. Indeed, with 40% of the urban area unlivable because of the destruction, there will be a massive humanitarian crisis for months. Solving that crisis is not just a matter for NGOs. The way it is solved will dictate whether Gaza can survive. UNRWA, the UN agency for refugees that has opened its clean, blue-and-white schools to a dirty, chaotic surge of displaced humanity, says Gaza is "on a precipice". The hospital I've just been in has 95 blast and bullet wounds to treat, with six intensive care beds.
Logic dictates that either aid flows inwards, on an unprecedented scale, or people will flow outwards – not tomorrow, but as the weeks roll by without sanitation or power. Palestinians fear that a humanitarian crisis will be used to move them permanently off the land captured by the Israelis, and ultimately into camps in Egypt.
I have been to Muslim countries where there is deep conservatism, low education and suspicion of the west. This is not one of them. I constantly meet highly educated people who speak English; cheerful and friendly people – which is amazing in itself, given the level of terror the night brings. The world is not so blessed with educated, resourceful people that it can afford to waste the lives of 1.8 million Palestinians behind the iron grilles and the concrete walls that delimit Gaza. I have lost track of how many times I've met a young guy, 18 or 19 years old, proud not to be a fighter, a militant, or a duck-and-dive artist on the street. When you ask what his job is, the common answer is "carpenter". Working with wood – not metal or computer code – is the limit of what the blockade has enabled the skilled manual worker here to achieve.
Faced with such hopelessness, naturally, many become resigned: "Living is the same as being dead" is a phrase you hear among young men. It is the perfect rationale for the nihilist military organisation some choose to join. But its opposite is the resourcefulness that rewires a house after its front has been blown off; that sits on the carpet making bread on a hot pan after a home has been reduced to dust.
There are only two economic routes for life to flow back into Gaza and, given the bitterness of this conflict, the route from Israel will not be the main one. Egypt holds the key to Gaza's economic integration to the rest of the global economy. Open the Rafah crossing, and the need for the tunnels disappears. To the world this forlorn, impoverished and totally battered society has become a byword for impossibility and despair. But nobody has told Gazans. I found them full of hope.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/03/gaza-not-as-expected-amid-terror-hope
Gaza is not as I expected. Amid the terror, there is hope
The world is not so blessed that it can afford to waste the lives of the 1.8 million Palestinians who live there
Everyday life in Gaza is becoming impossible. Photograph: Majdi Fathi/NurPhoto/Corbis
I have been reporting from Gaza all week, and, amid the stream of dead and injured civilians wheeled on trolleys before me, frantic people gesturing in my face, and nights spent in an unlit city under bombardment, I've come to a conclusion I did not expect: Gaza "works".
What I mean is that, given resources, connections with the outside world, and time, this narrow political entity could function normally. With its smooth sand, blue sea and skies, it could even become a tourist destination. It already has a massive pool of trained and educated human capital – though, sadly, its most expert people are trauma surgeons. As it is, hotels stand deserted along the beachfront in Gaza City. Their embarrassed waiters struggle to boil coffee on single flames. The fishermen in the port sneak out maybe 20 yards in canoes, while hostilities are on, 100 yards in motor boats during the sporadic ceasefires.
Everyday life, even for those with money and friends in the west, is becoming impossible. Water queues form, petrol stations are empty. Equally unnerving, for the young, urbanised kids, the internet is sporadic. I met two women – educated professionals: the top floor of their apartment block had been demolished by an Israeli rocket. Now they, too, were in the world of queues, poor hygiene, homelessness. A decent handbag does not exempt you. The currency is the shekel, but the biggest concern is gold. Palestinians keep their wealth in gold and jewellery. Around 250,000 people have been displaced and moving into a packed and filthy school, to sleep alongside the donkeys of the poor, does not strike people with gold as any better than staying and waiting for the shells to hit.
Gaza works because of Gaza's people. Since Hamas took control in 2007, the place has been run by a group designated as terrorist, and under Islamic rule. Unable to rebuild after the Israeli invasion of 2008-9, they instead built tunnels – nobody knows how long – in which the military wing of Hamas, the Qassam Brigades, live, store their rockets and fight. The tunnels are also used to bring in the essential supplies that have been banned during the seven-year siege of Gaza.
Strangely, then, for much of the day, you see the place as it might be if Hamas did not exist. Non-Hamas police keep order; women without hijabs move around as freely as the women in full veil; doctors returned from Germany and Canada saw the shattered bones of youths who have lived and may die in this small strip of land. And two-thirds of the population skip and play and wrestle – for they are children.
When this war is over, nothing good will happen in Gaza until the seige and blockade are lifted. Indeed, with 40% of the urban area unlivable because of the destruction, there will be a massive humanitarian crisis for months. Solving that crisis is not just a matter for NGOs. The way it is solved will dictate whether Gaza can survive. UNRWA, the UN agency for refugees that has opened its clean, blue-and-white schools to a dirty, chaotic surge of displaced humanity, says Gaza is "on a precipice". The hospital I've just been in has 95 blast and bullet wounds to treat, with six intensive care beds.
Logic dictates that either aid flows inwards, on an unprecedented scale, or people will flow outwards – not tomorrow, but as the weeks roll by without sanitation or power. Palestinians fear that a humanitarian crisis will be used to move them permanently off the land captured by the Israelis, and ultimately into camps in Egypt.
I have been to Muslim countries where there is deep conservatism, low education and suspicion of the west. This is not one of them. I constantly meet highly educated people who speak English; cheerful and friendly people – which is amazing in itself, given the level of terror the night brings. The world is not so blessed with educated, resourceful people that it can afford to waste the lives of 1.8 million Palestinians behind the iron grilles and the concrete walls that delimit Gaza. I have lost track of how many times I've met a young guy, 18 or 19 years old, proud not to be a fighter, a militant, or a duck-and-dive artist on the street. When you ask what his job is, the common answer is "carpenter". Working with wood – not metal or computer code – is the limit of what the blockade has enabled the skilled manual worker here to achieve.
Faced with such hopelessness, naturally, many become resigned: "Living is the same as being dead" is a phrase you hear among young men. It is the perfect rationale for the nihilist military organisation some choose to join. But its opposite is the resourcefulness that rewires a house after its front has been blown off; that sits on the carpet making bread on a hot pan after a home has been reduced to dust.
There are only two economic routes for life to flow back into Gaza and, given the bitterness of this conflict, the route from Israel will not be the main one. Egypt holds the key to Gaza's economic integration to the rest of the global economy. Open the Rafah crossing, and the need for the tunnels disappears. To the world this forlorn, impoverished and totally battered society has become a byword for impossibility and despair. But nobody has told Gazans. I found them full of hope.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/03/gaza-not-as-expected-amid-terror-hope
What siege would be there if Rafah was opened?
The Naval Siege, the control of food and basic provisions that go through Karni or Erez. The Rafah border being opened would be a good start, but it shouldn't end there.
I'm Likud, and like many other Likud voters I know that a two-state solution is the only viable option. I'm not aware of the polls you're quoting but I wouldn't expect anything different in the current climate. Now imagine the effectof a Palestinian leadership acknowledging the Jews' right for their nation state in pre-1967 borders. That would turn the tide dramatically towards an immediate process leading to a peaceful agreement. Right-wing extremists here would be irrelevant, and a peaceful coalition would be a matter of time (short period).
I doubt Sharon would have brought peace here, because he wouldn't have handed a square inch of the WB without acknowledgement in a Jewish Israel. I'm not going to comment on the legal status of the settlements because I strongly believe they are a minor issue, a distant second in importance compared with a lasting reconciliation based on equal mational rights.
That's not what Olmert proposed.
Why wouldn't Rafah serve for delivering food and other basic products?
The Jews lived happily before the Zionist take over
Are you suggesting the blockade is only facilitated by Egypt and their border?
Read very carefully:
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2566&Itemid=64
Ibn Kathir is one of the most respected Islamic commentators, by the way. Any Christian or Jew living under faithful Muslim rule is a second class citizen. Umar bin al-Khattab is the second of the four rightly guided caliphs following after Abu Bakr in 633. These were two of Muhammad's closest companions.
I'm suggesting that if the Palestinians in Gaza did not pose a threat to their Egyptian neighbours then they would not have to depend on Israel for supplies.
Faithful Muslim rule? How many faithful Islamic nations are there?
In Saudi Arabia Christians are treated better than Shia Muslims, likewise Pakistan. Most the regimes in those nations are flaming hypocrites. Quoting an 'Islamic commentator' from 700 years ago doesn't exactly hold contemporary relevance.
At least he's said something ,more than the empty words from Obama and Cameron.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3266344,00.html
60-70% opposed Olmert´s idea in 2006. I browsed through newer polls; a (small?) majority supports new settlements; its fairly reasonable to suggest that the overwhelming majority would oppose the dismantling of current settlements.
Anyway. Many Likud voters support a the theoretic concept of a two-state solution. No doubt. The likud leadership clearly doesnt. In 2006, following olmers´s idea, at least 67k settlers would have had been relocated. Today this number doubled. Its impossible to relocate more than 100.000 people. No israeli government will ever have the power to enforce this kind of policy. Is there any precedent in history of mankind, where more than 100k people have been peacefully relocated against their will without using military force?
Let not pretend that Netanjahu is an idiot. He knows exactly that every single new settler creates faits accomlies; even if his personal preference would oppose this, his policy doesnt. All the talks and language aside, a two state solution, as its usually discussed in many papers and supported by the UN, is already off the table. There is no going back. If you support a two-state solution, you have to oppose any new settlements, because every new settler leaves less space for a potential Palestinian state. Any party that doesnt support the unconditional and unlimited stop of new settlements doesnt support a two-state solution.
Sunni and Shia Muslims of course fight one another passionately and so you're setting the bar remarkably low. It is certainly not true, for instance, that Christians are able to freely practise their faith in Saudi Arabia and citizens are not recognised as Christian but Muslim. You aren't even allowed Bibles in Saudi Arabia.
Christian workers from outside are allowed into Saudi Arabia for temporal work but they are not exempt from the harsh restriction on their freedom to worship.
One small fact to consider, if you're considered Muslim by the state (as is the default assumption) and are then found to be worshipping Jesus Christ in private, that is considered apostasy, which is punishable by death. Given the disgusting house of Saud, it only has to be reported that you are secretly following any religion other than Islam for you to be taken away and executed.
The only contemporary relevance to this topic is the current state of minorities in the Arab world.
I've found that most don't want to face the grim reality and are so determined not to that there is even a tendency among many to call those who proclaim the truth, racist.
Those who claim to want a single, Palestinian state in order to "liberate Palestine" really just want to destroy Israel and the Jewish people. I accept that most reasonable people on both sides want to see some kind of two-state solution and an end to the violent conflict. I don't see agreement as very likely with the way things are, however.
I think/hope this is a honest mistake on your part. Olmert realignment plan was a unilateral withdrawal from the WB, along the lines of the previous Gaza withdrawal. If 30-40% did not oppose that outrageous suggestion you could imagine the support a true peace plan would recieve here.
I don't know the source of the figures you are posting here, but Israel has set many precedents in the history of mankind, and a democratic decision will see the vast majority of settlers relocating peacefully to Israelן territory within agreed borders. I wouldn't mind if the rest agreed to remain in their settlements under Palestinian rule if they wished to. I'm sure neither would the peace-seeking Palestinians.
I think that you'll find that most settlement construction in the WB is within the main chunks of territory Olmert suggested would be annexed by Israel anyway. As I said, other settlemnts would have to be evacuated. You could see construction there as a platform for housing Palestinian refugees.
How's that for a deal? Jewish state in pre-1967 borders on one side, and modern housing for Palestinians?
Last edited:
It's at times like this(same with Obama)that it shows how spineless 'Our' elected leaders are.
Although I've always thought Cameron was a really horrible cnut.
Ban Ki-Moon has lost the plot, if he ever had it.
David Cameron needs to come out in support of Israel with a focus on offering humanitarian aid to the Gaza strip. Given public opinion at the moment and the bias in the media, he isn't going to do that, though. Too many hipsters shouting "Free Palestine" from afar with no real understanding.