what to do about Israel/Palestine?

[The Wrath]

After reading The Case for Peace, by Alan Dershowitz, it occurred to me that we could use a thread like this.

In my opinion, the only thing that will ever work is a two-state solution. Hear me out on this one, because I know it won't be popular. I fully support Israel's military incursions into the territories to take out terrorists, and I blame the Palestinian terrorist groups for any civilian casualties that occur. Short of exterminating the entire population of Palestine, however, there is no way to militarily destroy the terrorist threat. Terrorists are too easily replaced and young Palestinians are too easily recruited.

There needs to be some kind of real ceasefire, unlike all the ones we've seen up until now. How to get that to work is beyond me, but I don't doubt that greater men than I have some good ideas. The Palestinian Authority needs to be heavily monitored, to assure that it doesn't continue using the media as its means of inciting hatred of Israel. The government-run schools also need to be heavily monitored, for the same reason. Most importantly, the PA must prove that it is willing to police itself and start cleaning up the terrorist groups.

Once these conditions have been met, I think a Palestinian state could work. Of course, the Palestinians have to understand that each time they refuse to make peace, the deal they end up with will be less and less satisfying. That is a point that Dershowitz repeatedly makes in his book.

After the Palestinian children are no longer being indoctrinated with hatred of Jews, peace will become more and more stable as they grow up. Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt in exchange for peace, and it worked. I see no reason why, under the proper conditions, it couldn't work here too.

[Vladimir Berkov]

The big problem I see is that the only solution would require some sort of outside "peacekeeper" force, to enforce a two-state system for instance. Creating a two-state system will still mean terror attacks against Israel, and Israeli retaliation and territorial occupation. You need some sort of intermediary to keep the border stable. The UN seems like the logical candiate.

The whole Israeli problem seems to stem from the UN in the first place, though. By artificially creating the state of Israel the UN virtually guaranteed war. And once Israel became the dominant power in the region, you end up with a situation where Israel has a military presence in Arab areas and where terror attacks are the only option for Arabs to retaliate.

It is hard to fix such a problem once "the cat is out of the bag" so-to-speak. It might take the total destruction of one side or the other. I am not an enormous fan of Israel (mainly for their domestic policies, not the foreign policy ones) but they are far preferable to the alternative. If it comes down to a choice of Israel being wiped away or the surrounding Arab states I would prefer the US chose Israel.

[softwareNerd]

... Israel has a military presence in Arab areas and where terror attacks are the only option for Arabs to retaliate.

That is not the only option for the Arabs, nor is it their best option, if they were to think selfishly about it.

[Vladimir Berkov]

That is not the only option for the Arabs, nor is it their best option, if they were to think selfishly about it.

All that really matters, though is what they perceive to be their options. They are not going to see the value in living under Israeli jurisdiction, but they are going to see value in blowing themselves up trying to kill Israeli soldiers and civilians. Islam is certainly a big factor in this for sure.

One thing which I think complicates the matter in this regard is actually the purpose of the Israeli state to begin with. The creation of a "Jewish state" was simply bound the cause problems regardless of the actual status of arabs within it.

You would likely have similar problems if half of Texas was declared to be a "Mexican state," Spanish the national language, and Mexicans started pouring in to live there. The anglo population would likely feel under attack and the new state would be the logical target, regardless of how they are treated under its domestic laws.

[The Wrath]

That's why he added "to retaliate." He's pretty much right. They aren't allowed to have a military so, if they want to hurt Israel, terrorism is about the only way they can do it.

First of all, Vladimir, what do you mean by "artificially created" Israel? The land that became Israel already had a clear Jewish majority and had been under de facto Jewish rule for some time. And I feel obliged to point out that there has never been a nation called "Palestine," so the state that was "artificially created" came out of a land mass that, at the time, wasn't a state at all. And what, praytell, in the history of the United Nations makes you think that it would do a good job administrating anything in the region? The anti-Semitism of the UN has made the conflict exponentially worse. It funds schools that usually do little else than train future HAMAS members and its incessant anti-Israel resolutions only show the Palestinian terror groups that, if nothing else, their efforts are making the rest of the world hate Israel. In short, the UN is showing them that terrorism works.

I agree that there would need to be outside observers, for a while, but the UN isn't the place to look. I think the US would be by far the most logical choice. I know you may be asking how that's in the interests of the United States. Well, if there is one single potential event that could do more to stabilize the Middle East than any other, it would be the normalization of ties between Israel and the Arab world. If some sort of final solution could be reached, it would be a huge step toward making the region, and thus the whole world, a safer place. And if our goal is to stabilize the Middle East with minimal American casualties, that's the place to do it. Administering the Palestinian territories would never result in the number of casualties that Iraq has.

[Strangelove]

Does Dershowitz say anything about the settlements? In my mind they seem to be a large impedement to a two-state solution since its seems to be a case of Israelis trying to undermine Palestinian territorial soverignty.

I am not a big hand of forcefully removing all Israeli settlements from the West Bank, especially since most of them seem to be centered around Jerusalem. I have wondered whether it might be better to treat Israelis in the territory of a future Palestinian State as expatriats in a foreign country.

[The Wrath]

Dershowitz supports the forced evacuation of Israeli settlements.

I think your last sentence is right on. If they want to stay in the territories, tell them they can stay, on the understanding that they no longer have the protection of the IDF. I know that the Arabs want them out, but there can be no reason for that other than sheer racism. So I see no reason why Israel should cave into their racist demands. Not to mention, removing them just reinforces the idea that terrorism works.

And the ones that have been evacuated, so far, are not near Jeruslem. J'lem is in the armpit of the West Bank. The ones that have been evacuated so far have all been in Gaza.

Edited December 5, 2006 by Moose

[softwareNerd]

It is possible that the creation of Israel was unwise. I don't know enough to say if it was also illegitimate.

You would likely have similar problems if half of Texas was declared to be a "Mexican state," Spanish the national language, and Mexicans started pouring in to live there. The anglo population would likely feel under attack and the new state would be the logical target, regardless of how they are treated under its domestic laws.

I also do not know the specifics about the way Israel was formed, so I do not know if this analogy would hold. Further, the example does not have enough information to know if I'd object. I would object if Mexicans came in and took over land by force. If some took over land by force and others bought it fair and square, I would not group them all as "Mexicans" for the purpose of judging them, any more than I would group a variety of seemingly related, but actually different deaths as being "meth related deaths". Instead, I would object to the criminals and welcome the honest folk. As an immigrant myself, I do not object to immigrants pouring into the country. I am for unlimited, virtually unrestricted immigration and I don't mind it if the country turns Spanish (or Chinese) by default.

Now, even without knowing the specifics of Israel's creation, I would bet was not formed in some purely Capitalist rights-respecting way. However, I would not judge the whole state as illegitimate unless I found that right-violations were central to its creation. I'll also add that even if it was legitimate, does not mean it was wise.

[Vladimir Berkov]

First of all, Vladimir, what do you mean by "artificially created" Israel? The land that became Israel already had a clear Jewish majority and had been under de facto Jewish rule for some time. And I feel obliged to point out that there has never been a nation called "Palestine," so the state that was "artificially created" came out of a land mass that, at the time, wasn't a state at all.

By artificially created I refer to not only the UN stage but the British one prior to that and Zionism in general. The jews which created the population for proto-Israel were coming from everywhere in the world, rather than it being an instance of a pre-existing population seeking national self-determination. Zionist influences on the British created the initial support for Jewish self-rule. The UN stage and partition was the tipping point, however, because it recognized an ethnic state where neither the state or the ethnicity had largely existed prior.

Israel, to the extent Israel is a "Jewish" state I think is a bad idea in part because of this artificiality. Israel to the extent it is a semi-free country is a good idea, and should be supported. This is why the hard-line Jewish influences who want radical military action by Israel are a large problem for the region.

And what, praytell, in the history of the United Nations makes you think that it would do a good job administrating anything in the region? The anti-Semitism of the UN has made the conflict exponentially worse. It funds schools that usually do little else than train future HAMAS members and its incessant anti-Israel resolutions only show the Palestinian terror groups that, if nothing else, their efforts are making the rest of the world hate Israel. In short, the UN is showing them that terrorism works.

I don't think the UN is the solution, I just said it was the logical choice. The main requirement for the peacekeepers is that they be seen by both sides as being fair and relatively neutral. This is why I actually think the US is a bad choice. There is simply too-much animosity towards the US from Arabs in the region. I think even a EU force would likely have more credibility as peacekeepers.

[The Wrath]

I don't think the UN is the solution, I just said it was the logical choice. The main requirement for the peacekeepers is that they be seen by both sides as being fair and relatively neutral. This is why I actually think the US is a bad choice. There is simply too-much animosity towards the US from Arabs in the region. I think even a EU force would likely have more credibility as peacekeepers.

Yeah, the Arabs hate the US but they also hate the Jews, so let's not take their opinion into consideration. Furthermore, the UN and EU both hate Israel. For all the rhetoric you hear about the US being Israel's attack dog, the US is far more even-handed with the two sides...even to a fault, in my opinion. We finance the PA and join the chorus of nations that call for Israel to exercise "restraint." The difference between us and other nations is that we don't call for Israel to immediately cease all military activities and give the Arabs everything they want.

Softwarenerd, just out of curiosity, why do you think the creation of Israel was unwise? I'm not arguing, just trying to see your point of view on the matter.

[softwareNerd]

Softwarenerd, just out of curiosity, why do you think the creation of Israel was unwise?

I don't think it was; I just don't know that it wasn't. If I were a jew in that age, I do not know what options were open to me. For instance, if migrating to the US was an option, I might have chosen that option. If the European country in which I was living was hospitable enough, that might have been my second choice. I just don't know what knowledge I would bring to bare, what long-term judgements I would be making about the alternatives; but going off to settle amidst hostile Arabs may or may not have been the best option.

[The Wrath]

I'll grant that migrating to Palestine wouldn't have been a great idea, but that only deals with the situation of diaspora Jews. Jews had been living in Palestine, in some capacity, for millenia, and there had been a Jewish majority in what is now Israel since sometime in the 1880's, if I'm not mistaken. Granting them national status may have been psychologically upsetting to the Arabs, simply because they didn't like the idea of having a Jewish "nation" on their holy land, but the demographics were already there. Now, granting an automatic "right of return" may have been a bad idea, since the influx of Jews just angered the Arabs even more.

Well, you can argue that that was a bad idea, pragmatically, but I don't think anyone on this board will argue that Jews shouldn't have been able to go to the newly established state if they wanted to.

I don't know what to think about whether it was wise to create the state or not. Part of me thinks they should have just made the whole region into a state called "Palestine," with both Jews and Arabs. Then I think about the fact that, had they done that, Palestine would probably just be another Arab/Muslim state now and the Jews would probably have been either exterminated or driven out, due to the sheer ratio of Arabs to Jews. I guess the only other option was to let it remain as a British colony, but that wouldn't last forever and someone eventually would have had to step in and decide what to do with it.

I tend to support the creation of Israel because of the principle of self-determination. The Jews of Palestine had a much richer culture and more productive society than the Arabs of Palestine and should have been able to govern themselves. I don't think they should have been subjected to Arab rule. Did it cause more trouble than it was worth? Maybe. But my guess is that the troubles between the Arabs and the Jews would be just as bad or worse than they would have been, had there just been a binational state called Palestine.

This has been an interesting discussion so far, but it got off-topic rather quickly. Whether or not the creation of Israel was wise is really a topic for another thread, so if it's going to carry on any further, a Mod needs to split it off.

Regardless of what you think about the creation of Israel, the fact is that it exists now. What should be done to resolve the current situation? Does anyone support the two-state solution? Does anyone support Israel annexing Gaza and the West Bank?

Then again, what about giving the West Bank to Jordan and Gaza to Egypt? Those countries did, after all, occupy those respective territories for a number of years. Both countries also have friendly diplomatic relations with Israel. I've never actually heard that suggested before...it just occurred to me in the past 5 minutes though. I wonder why no one ever suggests that.

Edited December 5, 2006 by Moose

[y_feldblum]

The best course would be for Israel to offer the Palestinian Arabs two choices: to integrate themselves into Israeli society in a single state, or to get the hell out before the tanks roll the hell in. This should be the general policy of Western countries such as the US with respect to crazylands such as Iran (in other words, integrate themselves into Western society, on Western philosophical principles ... or get the hell out of this world).

That is, of course, the best course of action for Israel to take. But while the best course of action for the fanatical religionists preaching (and practicing) mass destruction is to stop being fanatical religionists preaching (and practicing) mass destruction ... I don't envision that ever happening.

[Scott_Connery]

I don't think there can be a peaceful solution...ever. The only way to get peace is for Israel to force the Palestinians out. Everything about the Palestinians shows that they don't even warrant that gentle treatment.

There is ample evidence that the Palestinians are unwilling to accept any peace, and anyone who thinks they might in the future are deluding themselves.

[The Wrath]

Forty years ago, you would have said that about Egypt. Arafat was the major barrier to peace and has only been dead for 2 years. Give it more time before you jump to the conclusion that ethnic cleansing (different than genocide) is the only way to acheive peace. By saying "the Palestinians," you're treating them all as one big organism, which isn't really fair. There are, believe it or not, Palestinians who are not part of the problem.

Edited December 5, 2006 by Moose

[Vladimir Berkov]

The best course would be for Israel to offer the Palestinian Arabs two choices: to integrate themselves into Israeli society in a single state, or to get the hell out before the tanks roll the hell in. This should be the general policy of Western countries such as the US with respect to crazylands such as Iran (in other words, integrate themselves into Western society, on Western philosophical principles ... or get the hell out of this world).

That is, of course, the best course of action for Israel to take. But while the best course of action for the fanatical religionists preaching (and practicing) mass destruction is to stop being fanatical religionists preaching (and practicing) mass destruction ... I don't envision that ever happening.

The problem though is that Israel is not a secular western state in the way we would think of one. Israel was created for the express purpose of being a state for an ethnic/religious group. This has influenced everything from its law, to is language, to its politics, to its culture. Israel does not want a secular, cultural conglomerate in which Jews are a minority group. This is, I think the major barrier to peace. It is harder to blame arabs for not integrating themselves into Israel when Israel is structured as to make them second-class citizens.

[The Wrath]

Israel is a secular state. In some ways, it is more secular than the United States. Israeli Arabs enjoy the same full rights as Israeli Jews, including the right to vote and representation in the Knesset. Polls have shown that, were a Palestinian state to be created, the vast majority of Israeli Arabs would want to remain as citizens of Israel. If you're going to make accusations of apartheid, you can't really do it by pointing to the status of Israeli Arabs.

[Vladimir Berkov]

Israel is a secular state. In some ways, it is more secular than the United States. Israeli Arabs enjoy the same full rights as Israeli Jews, including the right to vote and representation in the Knesset. Polls have shown that, were a Palestinian state to be created, the vast majority of Israeli Arabs would want to remain as citizens of Israel. If you're going to make accusations of apartheid, you can't really do it by pointing to the status of Israeli Arabs.

I am not saying that arab Israelis have inferior rights to Jewish Israelis. My point is that the structure of Israel is defininately biased towards Jewish, rather than non-Jewish interests. You can see this in their citizenship laws, the makeup of the population, language, culture, etc. I am not saying this is a "bad" thing per se even, just that it is obviously a good reason why we can't expect arabs to willingly become Israelis.

[The Wrath]

That's like saying that Spain is not set up to allow for the integration of the Basques. After all, Spain speaks Spanish and not Basque. And the culture in Spain is...well, Spanish, not Basque. Yes, Israel is a Jewish culture. But that doesn't mean that the Arabs can't integrate into it, the same way immigrants have come here for decades and integrated into American culture.

Having said that, I don't support the annexation of Gaza and the West Bank. I'm just saying that your reason for opposing the idea doesn't really hold water.

[Vladimir Berkov]

That's like saying that Spain is not set up to allow for the integration of the Basques. After all, Spain speaks Spanish and not Basque. And the culture in Spain is...well, Spanish, not Basque. Yes, Israel is a Jewish culture. But that doesn't mean that the Arabs can't integrate into it, the same way immigrants have come here for decades and integrated into American culture.

Could the arabs? Yes (maybe) considering that current Israeli law allows citizenship mainly on the basis of religion/ethnicity. The question is whether it is reasonable for them to do so.

The difference between America and Israel is that America, despite what many Republicans believe, was not created with the goal of being a religious/ethnic state. In fact, the races and ethnicities which dominated at the time of the Founding Fathers are completely different than the ones you see today. The religion present at Plymouth Rock is not dominant today, etc. In short, America is a concept that survives the predominance of any one religion or ethnic group.

The same cannot be said of Israel. Israel is legally enshrined as a "Jewish" state and it is the avowed policy of its government to keep it that way. It would be as if, upon the founding of the United States, the Founding Fathers chose a giant blue cross as our national flag and proceeded to allow only protestant Christians to emigrate here. To some extent this was true, but this is because it was a flaw with the US in its early history as well as with Israel today.

What I am getting at is that it is unreasonable to expect non-jewish people to flock to israel while Israel continues to see itself as primarly a Jewish state. I am not sure if this is possible, since doing so undermines the very reason for establishing Israel in the first place. (as a Jewish-majority socialist state)

Still, efforts at removing Israel's religious bias especially in immigration, and with respect to the settlements I think will go far to show the world that Israel is more committed to being a secular plurocracy than a Jewish majority.

Edited December 5, 2006 by Vladimir Berkov

[Alon Tsin]

I would like to address some of the points made in this thread. I live in Israel, so I can give some perspective from an Israeli point of view.

About Israel's right to exist :I would like to refer you to a wonderful book by Alan Dershowitz "The Case for Israel", in which he brilliantly outlines why Israel has the right to exist , supporting his arguments with solid historical facts . In short, The fact that the Israeli-Jews created a value-filled and productive society in a desert, achieved wonderful things in many fields (like science, literature,education) and managed to survive numerous vicious attacks by surrounding enemies is by itself an answer to the question of Israel's legitimacy. I would also like to remind you that the US was also established by British colonists who took the land from the indian tribes, and yet no one (in the western world) questions the legitimacy of the US or it's right to exist (and rightfully so!)

Granted, many things in Israel are wrong - Religion and Politics to name a few - but none of those problems is big enough to question Israel's legitimacy because of it, because the basic values of human life , education and productiveness still lead this country.

About the Israeli Arabs and Integration : I think that it is wrong to equate the integration of Mexicans in the USA with the integration of Arabs in Israel. The Mexicans , though from a different culture, are generally (as I understand ) people with values similar to those of the American people (such as productiveness and the value of life), who come to America to improve their lives and their children's lives.Therefore, integration can happen, and it will not be destructive.

The problem with the Arabs is that their culture is the culture of Islam - the culture of hate, the culture of Death. That is their basic premise, that is their goal. You cannot integrate someone with values such as these - that would be suicide. Unless the Arabs manage to change their basic values , I see no future in massive integration of Arabs in Israel - The only future would be total destruction from the inside.

The Solution? In short - there are several points:

1. There should be two states - one Palestinian, and one Israeli.

2. All the Israeli Arabs who refuse to swear loyalty to Israel should be transferred (with compensations, of course) to Palestine or any other Arab state.

3. There will be no contact between the two states until the terror in this state is destroyed - e.g No Palestinians shall be allowed to work in Israel and vice versa, Israel shall not fund the other state etc etc..

4. Any terrorist action shall be followed be severe retaliation by Israel - exactly like the USA would have reacted if Canada started firing missiles on Chicago.

This is the best solution in my opinion.

** I realize that my points are short and might need more development , but I had no time to elaborate on those points. If needed, I will elaborate on future posts**

Alon

[Dismuke]

I think will go far to show the world that Israel is more committed to being a secular plurocracy than a Jewish majority.

But the important context here is the fact that the people in the world who are critical of and hold hostile hatred for Isreal are not clamoring for a secular plurocracy. What they are clamoring for is to replace Israel's very mild theocracy where there exists a great deal of freedom for Jew and non-Jew alike with an Islamic-only tyranny. In that context, such complaints about Isreal carry about as much weight as O.J. Simpson's moral condemnation of an undersized school yard bully who merely calls people names. As for showing the "world" - well, pandering to those people in the world who would need to be "shown" is a total waste of time. Such people are simply not open to persuasion - you cannot reason with those who are irrational. It would be like trying to persuade Ted Kennedy that capitalism is moral and that medicine needs to be totally private with no government involvement. In other words, it ain't gonna happen.

Edited December 5, 2006 by Dismuke

[The Wrath]

Excellent post, Alon. I agree 100%. Although, I feel obliged to point out that there are many people who question the legitimacy of the United States due to its treatment of the Native Americans.

Dismuke, you make some good points. You should note, however, that not all Palestinian terrorist groups are Islamic. Fatah and its subgroups, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and Tanzim, are secular groups with secular goals. They just use religious symbolism to garner support. The PFLP, PFLP-GC, and DFLP are also secular groups with Marxist-Leninist ideologies. I don't know for sure about the Fatah groups, but I know that these last 3 groups have non-Arab members, as well as members who are Christian and Jewish.

[FeatherFall]

I feel obliged to point out that there are many people who question the legitimacy of the United States due to its treatment of the Native Americans.

I would have hit this point if you hadn't.

It seems like the two state solution is what needs to be done, with the caveat that the second (Palestinian) state needs to be a rights-respecting state like Israel. I might add that it would be easier to get to this solution if Israel gave up its ridiculous fascination with Jerusalem.

[The Wrath]

And it would also be easier if the Palestinians gave up their fascination with it. Israel offered to split Jerusalem back in 2000 and Arafat refused the offer in favor of a new Intifada, so I can't quite see what you're getting at with that one.

As for the Palestinian state being "rights-respecting"...good luck with that one. To be perfectly honest, I don't care if it is or not, just so long as it isn't belligerent towards Israel. Jordan, while not as bad as most of the Arab world, can hardly be called "rights-respecting," but I don't favor Israel going in and removing its government. It is, after all, about as friendly towards Israel as an Arab country is likely to ever be.