Law School Discussion

No more Thread Hijacks: The Official Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Thread

rhombot

  • ****
  • 715
  • hanthala
    • View Profile

 First of all there are not "hundreds of thousands of settlers". You have populations that live very close to the border in an area that might be beyond the line but is very close or overlaps. An example of this would be Alfe Menashe. The settlers in Hevron or Kiryat Arab, which are the more ideological outposts, do not constitute "hundreds of thousands".

the generally cited figure is 400,000 settlers, and i don't know of anyone who seriously disputes it, unless they're disputing that jewish israelis living in occupied palestine are settlers. wikipedia, for example, gives figures that roughly add up to 400,000: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlements

there's no difference for the purpose of the point i was making between a settler from modiin and a settler from hebron. both must either leave or live under palestinian rule under a 2-state solution along the '67 borders.

I am very adamantly opposed to the refugee issue from many perspectives. Presumably, the whole point of negotiations between the PLO and Israel is with the objective of creating peace/reconciliation between Israel and what people call Palestine. The insistence on the refugee problem ( which is one of the issues that the Palestinian leadership has been relatively flexible about) contradicts the acceptance of Israel. It is an elegant way of creating a two state solution - or more like a two Palestine solution.

that's exactly my point: cutting the country up into 2 doesn't get rid of the basic problem: a minority ruling the majority. the jewish state under the 2-state solution may still need to be an apartheid state. this seems to be what the 2-staters on the board are advocating.

If the Palestinians do have a right to come into Israel, than Jews should have a right to go back to Poland and Lithuania to reclaim their land.

correct (and jews should have that right even if palestinians are not granted right of return). i think some european countries grant this right.


Do you see that happen in the forseeable future? I would be interested in seeing a source that backs your claim that most Israelis support transfer. You might be right, but I am skeptical till I see source that confirms this ( a poll or survey, not hearsay).

can't find any right now, but i'll look. BTW i didn't say most israelis.


Lastly, I don't identify with the extreme settlers. On the other hand I fail to see how their ideology borders on Nazism. One of the problems I noticed is that the agreements seem to indicate that Arabs can live in Israel while Israelis cannot live under Arab sovereignty. This is called "Judenrein" - "cleansed of Jews". If Arabs live under Israeli sovereignty, why can't Jews live under Arab sovereignty. Why does there have to be a Jewish transfer?

i'm not sure what you're talking about. my argument for a 1-state soplution is mostly that it eliminates transfer.

nesnut

  • ****
  • 3759
  • Law School is thiiiiiiiis big!
    • View Profile
Alright, I ate about 3 pounds of honey-baked ham and half a chocolate easter bunny in honor of Easter (I love traditions that make no sense) and now it's back to debate.  I'll start with HK's response to my last post.

Your examples of Singapore and Malaysia are good examples, but you are comparing two entirely different regions and expecting the same results.  The bottom line at this point is what we can readily observe: currently, the 2-state solution has failed to address vital issues such as water, electricity and gas resources, all of which are in Israel.  A common Israeli tactic in dealing with the Occupied Territories is to use these commodities to their advantage- power, for example, is shut off for days at a time.  These issues have not been addressed by any of the discussions that have been had.  The current Israeli policy does not allow for utility control by the PA.  This is just one example of what I mean by "resource allocation."  Essentially, the question of what kind of state the PAlestinians would have in a 2-state solution isn't what the Palestinians will create- it's what the Israelis will allow.  That's the key here with why Malaysia/Singapore, Dubai, or even Israel's economic success has prospered: there isn't a third party dictating and controlling the economic success/failure for these states. 

This brings me to my next point: everybody referring to "Nixon going to China" continues to place the Palestinians as Nixon in this paradigm.  But when Nixon went to China, the Chinese accepted him.  They talked to him, allowed him to enter.  That's what's wrong here- the Israelis, not the Palestinians, are the ones who are Nixon.  They are the real power in this situation, and as such, the ability to bargain and create lies with them.  For example, the Israelis decided to sideline Arafat, thereby cutting diplomatic ties between the two peoples.  Even when Abbas was elected, there was almost no communication between both sides.  This isn't because the Palestinians won't talk- they aren't being asked to talk, and they can't force the Israelis to talk if they don't want to.  Currently, Israel won't talk to Hamas- they won't even allow parliament members to travel from Gaza to the West Bank for meetings.  The government is paralyzed, and it was already ostricized under Arafat/Abbas anyway.  I continue to point out that it has not been negotiations that have made the Isaelis move- it's been violence, both with the Palestinians and with the other Arab states.  You mention that it's impossible for Israel to talk to a government committed to its destruction- but what was the excuse with Arafat?  With Abbas?  The only people the Israelis seem to want to talk to is someone who will grant them what they want.  That isn't negotiating- that's dictating.  The Palestinians tried that once with Oslo, and all they were able to do in seven years was collect their own trash.  Yes, this is partly Arafat's fault- but considering that his people were sitting and watching settlements and settlers double, that the military presense was expanding, that the roads and control of borders was expanding, it's tough to say the Israelis were living up to their end of teh bargain.

Regarding your question about Jews who were evicted from their own homes after Israel was established: yes, I do believe they deserve compensation for their evictions, be it monetarily or through land reclamation.  If it was illegal and perpetuated in violence, I have no reason to say they don't deserve this.  The idea of a refugee is one who has been evicted from their place of living.  How they live after the evicition is up in the air- yes, you can try and live normally.  But, as I have said before time and time again, the Palestinians CAN'T live normally under military occupation.  It's like asking the Sudanese refugees in Ghana to "live normally" right where they are.

REgarding Arab control of Gaza and the West Bank- I was confused with your previous post regarding this issue- yes, they did assume control of these areas following the creation of Israel, but before that, it was never in their control.  As I said many many times before, I don't care what the other Arab states have done- the Palestinians were denied citizenship and were incapable of forming their own states without these states allowing them to.  These states continued to use the Palestinian situation (as well as the resources that came with holding these territories) for their own interests.  What does this have to do with Israel and the Palestinians?  I'm talking about them, not the other Arab states.  We have to focus this conversation on these two people, because they are the two currently embroiled in the conflict.

Regarding 22 arab nations and what principles guide them: who cares?  What does that matter?  What's relevant about that with regards to a unfified ISrael/Palestine?  Why did you even mention them with regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?  You've already argued that Israel exists in a completely different mindset than these places- I'm arguing that a unified state can as well.  I'm really confused as to why you would mention them at all.

Regarding violence and oppression in 1-state- yes, under the rule of law in a unified country, it is easier to break cycles of violence than it is to settle issues between two states through war.  We have conflicts in the US all the time, but we don't break out into ethnic/racial violence everyday- that's because we have laws, and laws safeguard the public, and if everyone is part of that public, they have an incentive to follow it.  Iraqis were thrown into a nation called Iraq despite intense ethnic/religious/cultural differences, as well as their own individual histories that were never incorporated by the British and French when they redrew the map of the middle east.  That isn't the case here- as I said before, cities like Tel Aviv and Haifa are examples of how both sides can and do live in peace together.  Let's stick with these two peoples instead of bringing the entire region into this mess.

And I still never received an answer to my other post: I argued that we are already seeing what a 2-state solution would look like, and it blows.  Here is what I asked from before:
_____________________________ _____________________________ ____________________
I want an argument- an argument that takes political, economic, security, religious, everything that encompasses a peaceful solution- that argues that 2 states will work and why it is the best and only way for peace to work, and a reason other than "they hate each other" for why 1-state would fail.  Because let's face it- they will hate each other still in 2-states: what will stop them from going to war then?
_____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________

nesnut

  • ****
  • 3759
  • Law School is thiiiiiiiis big!
    • View Profile
By the way, if Israel can't defeat Hamas, Hezboulah, or any other militant organization, what makes anybody think that the PA, which isn't allowed to fully arm because Israel won't allow it to, would be able to disarm these groups?  You defeat them by destroying their ideological/social bases- in other words, you supplant the social roles these groups fill (healthcare, schools, civic societies, etc) and eliminate the roots of their ideology- which, in Hamas' case, is a nationalistic one- the Islamic state part is secondary to that

HK

  • ****
  • 280
  • One country, Two Systems...
    • AOL Instant Messenger - ZacharyJL
    • View Profile
    • Email
Happy Easter!

there isn't a third party dictating and controlling the economic success/failure for these states. 

I am not sure who the "third party" you are referring to is. Singapore has no resources. They import everything. Water comes from Malaysia. Additionally, relations between the two countries have at times been adversial. Yet Singapore has been much more successful than many states rich in natural resources. The point is that it doesn't take a wealth of resources to produce success, and even having lots of resources doesn't guarantee sucess. Israel is short on water itself, and as a result uses water very carefully and much more efficiently than Americans do.

  Currently, Israel won't talk to Hamas- they won't even allow parliament members to travel from Gaza to the West Bank for meetings.  The government is paralyzed, and it was already ostricized under Arafat/Abbas anyway.  I continue to point out that it has not been negotiations that have made the Isaelis move- it's been violence, both with the Palestinians and with the other Arab states.  You mention that it's impossible for Israel to talk to a government committed to its destruction- but what was the excuse with Arafat?  With Abbas? 


The fact that even traditionally Palestinian sympathetic groups like the EU have cut off aid to hamas is very telling. Israel would be willing to negotiate with Hamas if Hamas would be willing to recognize Israel as others have. The world seems to agree that this lack of recognition is not helping. The problem with the Palestinians in general was that there never was a capable negotiating partner. Why negotiate for peace when the people you are negotiating with are not in a position to bring peace? Even so, Israel HAS negotiated, and in doing so has rewarded terrorism. You are correct about the settlements, and it's a good sign that Israel is willing to dismantle many of them. However, the second intefada has not stopped. This intefada has had devastating effects on israel's populace and economy. Israel talked about dismantling settlements and yet built more, and the Palestinians talked about peace and sent in suicide bombers. Both parties are quite guilty there.

You seem to be under the impression that Israel never negotiated with Sharon and Abbas, but this impression is false. There are a number of occasions when negotiations have taken place. Here is a link to one such instance.

http://www.jordanembassyus.org/02092005003.htm

Regarding your question about Jews who were evicted from their own homes after Israel was established: yes, I do believe they deserve compensation for their evictions, be it monetarily or through land reclamation.  If it was illegal and perpetuated in violence, I have no reason to say they don't deserve this.  The idea of a refugee is one who has been evicted from their place of living.  How they live after the evicition is up in the air- yes, you can try and live normally. 

First of all, I am glad you agree that Jews and their descendants should be compensated. Hopefully you would support this claim as vehemently as you would support the Palestinian right of return.

The thing you need to understand about what separates palestinian from other refugees and their definitions, is that one definition is practical while the other is not. If one would start to claim that every group that was ever displaced from an area they inhabited was entitled to their ancestral lands, the claims would never end! At some point, practicality takes over.

By the way, military occupation could end when terrorism ends and a real peace treaty can be signed.


We have to focus this conversation on these two people, because they are the two currently embroiled in the conflict.

The Palestinians have never held sovereignty over these lands. They went from Ottoman, to British, to Jordanian, to Israeli hands. They are deemed "occupied" because israel had taken these lands through warfare. In order to "give them back", Israel would have to return sovereignty to their former owner, that owner being Jordan. In other words, the legal situation is not that simple, and the current situation and its settlement involves more than 2 parties.

Regarding 22 arab nations and what principles guide them: who cares?  What does that matter?  What's relevant about that with regards to a unfified ISrael/Palestine?  Why did you even mention them with regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? 


It matters a lot. A unified state would bring Palestinians into the majority. If the state is democratic, that would mean the unified state would be an arab-muslim controlled state. The other states that fit this category in the middle east have done nothing to show that they uphold the values you seem to think would suddenly be espoused by this new state.

Regarding violence and oppression in 1-state- yes, under the rule of law in a unified country, it is easier to break cycles of violence than it is to settle issues between two states through war.  We have conflicts in the US all the time, but we don't break out into ethnic/racial violence everyday- that's because we have laws, and laws safeguard the public, and if everyone is part of that public, they have an incentive to follow it.  Iraqis were thrown into a nation called Iraq despite intense ethnic/religious/cultural differences,

Are you really trying to tell me that Israelis and Palestinians DON'T have as you said "intense ethnic/religious/cultural differences"?

1) The Middle East is not...and for many many years will never be the United States. Ideas like democracy, and rule of law are very new there, if they even exist to most people. I would like to see how these two concepts combine with Arab culture for a century before I support the idea of eliminating the only Jewish state and imposing Palestinian Arab rule on it.
2) The Palestinians who have been given Israeli citizenship are a minority group within a larger state. Combining all Israelis and palestinians together creates a very different demographic situation. Combining Israel with the Palestinianian territories into one country under control of both parties is a recipe for conflict and disaster. Comparing the situation there to iraq would undoubtedly be a much better comparison than comparing it to the US.

And I still never received an answer to my other post: I argued that we are already seeing what a 2-state solution would look like, and it blows.  Here is what I asked from before:
_____________________________ _____________________________ ____________________
I want an argument- an argument that takes political, economic, security, religious, everything that encompasses a peaceful solution- that argues that 2 states will work and why it is the best and only way for peace to work, and a reason other than "they hate each other" for why 1-state would fail.  Because let's face it- they will hate each other still in 2-states: what will stop them from going to war then?
_____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________

Ok, two things

1) You seem to equate a future Palestinian state with the status quo. You talk about Oslo, you talk about Camp David. Camp David was rejected. At this point, we can surmise, that the future Palestinian state will NOT be based on Camp David. Therefore, dismissing a two state solution based on camp david is useless.

Nobody is arguing that a two state solution will settle ALL problems. However, based on history and practicality it is the only viable way out of the conflict.

Yes, hate will still exist. Egyptians still hate Israelis. However, the two sides do not fire shots at each other. The hate between the two sides will take generations to get over. What we can hope for now is simply that they stop killing one another. Simple as that.

2) You are suggesting that two warring peoples, of different religions and ethnicities, who dislike one another should be put into one country, and that this country will become viable and peaceful, democratic and respect the rule of law. History is not on your side. You have given no evidence beyond your own hopes and conjecture that a one-state solution will work.

Until you can provide something solid that says a one-state solution CAN happen, and CAN be implemented as you believe it can, there is nothing more to argue against. Letting the Palestinians have sovereignty over themselves and the same for Israelis seems like a much better solution to me.

HK

  • ****
  • 280
  • One country, Two Systems...
    • AOL Instant Messenger - ZacharyJL
    • View Profile
    • Email
By the way, if Israel can't defeat Hamas, Hezboulah, or any other militant organization, what makes anybody think that the PA, which isn't allowed to fully arm because Israel won't allow it to, would be able to disarm these groups? You defeat them by destroying their ideological/social bases- in other words, you supplant the social roles these groups fill (healthcare, schools, civic societies, etc) and eliminate the roots of their ideology- which, in Hamas' case, is a nationalistic one- the Islamic state part is secondary to that

Israel could disarm them. The problem is, how do you disarm them without 1) Another military incursion into the west bank, where ANY israeli mistake could have them vilified in the media. 2) Do it without causing too much collateral damage 3) Do it without starting a regional war....the list goes on.

The reason it is much better for the PA to do it is that when Palestinians disarm them, the cycle can end there.

I agree with you on the second part. One would like to see those roles filled. I think the first step to that end would be to end the corruption that has plagued the PA for many years.

Don't downplay the religious motivation behind Hamas' actions.

->Soon

  • *****
  • 18818
    • View Profile
seems like the plestinians are starting to question the suicide bombers

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/17/telaviv.blast/index.html

or at least ? them more....

Steve.jd

  • ****
  • 4967
  • I'm edumacated now, still not photogenic though
    • View Profile
seems like the plestinians are starting to question the suicide bombers

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/17/telaviv.blast/index.html

or at least ? them more....

"Hamas -- the group that came to power -- called the bombing justified."

How can you negotiate with people like this?  You know what will happen tommorrow?  Cruise missiles and/or gunships in Palestinian camps in the West Bank and Gaza....can you really blame the Israeli's for responding to this?

->Soon

  • *****
  • 18818
    • View Profile
i dont know.  if they do, then the palestininas will, then the jews will, then.....

Steve.jd

  • ****
  • 4967
  • I'm edumacated now, still not photogenic though
    • View Profile
i dont know.  if they do, then the palestininas will, then the jews will, then.....

Yeah no kidding, but why would ppl expect the Israeli's to just sit around after something like this?

->Soon

  • *****
  • 18818
    • View Profile
there are no ez answers.