Opinion of this solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict

[traininthedistance]

Lol @ taking away the Palestinians' right to return to their own land being "reasonable."

So Germany should be demanding territory east of the Oder-Neisse?  Poland should demand Belarus back?  The Native Americans should demand we all pack up and move back to other continents?  How deep does this rabbit hole go?

Sorry, but "right of return" is the one Palestinian demand that really is unreasonable in my mind. Any plausible compromise simply has to jettison it as the Palestinians' major concession. What ought to happen instead (but I fear never will) is that Jordan etc. needs to step and accept the refugees as full citizens.

It's not the worst suggested compromise I've ever seen, but it isn't a solution. There aren't any solutions; there are too many parties involved and all with conflicting (and perfectly understandable; up to a point even perfectly reasonable) needs, demands and priorities. Which isn't to say that attempts to find a better status quo are a bad idea, of course. Just that any proposed solution (no matter in who's favour it's stacked) would end up screwing over a large number of basically blameless people for the sake of neatness.

Yeah, this is a good point; you're right that we need to talk about these things in terms of painful compromises, not pat solutions.

[Peter the Lefty]

Lol @ taking away the Palestinians' right to return to their own land being "reasonable."

So Germany should be demanding territory east of the Oder-Neisse?  Poland should demand Belarus back?  The Native Americans should demand we all pack up and move back to other continents?  How deep does this rabbit hole go?

Sorry, but "right of return" is the one Palestinian demand that really is unreasonable in my mind. Any plausible compromise simply has to jettison it as the Palestinians' major concession. What ought to happen instead (but I fear never will) is that Jordan etc. needs to step and accept the refugees as full citizens.

[quote]
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_right_of_return

[Indy Texas 🇺🇦🇵🇸]

Israelis may be concerned about security from rocket attacks and suicide bombings, how Jews would be treated if some of their homes were to fall under the jurisdiction of a Palestinian state, the possibility of Palestine building armed forces (the countries are so small that bombardment of major Israeli cities could occur even without Palestinians leaving their own territory), and what role Hezbollah may continue to have in the politics of Gaza.

Palestinians meanwhile might want more in terms of trade and travel to and from Gaza uninhibited by Israel, free access for their people to travel by day to Israel for work, the dismantling of checkpoints and walls, assurances that universities won't be forced to shut down or their country conquered by Israel if professors exercise academic freedom or militants strike at Israel against the state's wishes, and justice for Arabs facing discrimination in Israel.

People on both sides also have interests in water rights and being able to visit holy sites.

I would say that the creation of an independent Palestine would remove the impetus for rocket attacks and suicide bombings. And if they didn't, I would say Israel would be perfectly justified in retaliating against those.

But you can't imply that Israel has more of a right to defend itself than a hypothetical Palestine would. Small countries simply have these problems. If you want to live in a country that's mostly insulated from foreign attacks, go live on an island in the South Pacific. I would support Palestine being demilitarized for a "normalization period" lasting about 15 years during which they and Israel would be expected to patch up their relations and let time heal wounds. During that time, UN troops would be present at the border in a DMZ-type arrangement.

The West Bank and Gaza would have to be accessible without entering Israeli territory. West Germany managed to allow free travel between itself and West Berlin through East Germany via an elevated international highway. Basically you got on the highway and weren't allowed to get off until you reached your final destination; there were small turnoffs with gas stations and all exits were manned by East German border patrol. You could do something similar between Gaza and the West Bank, perhaps with a roadway as well as high-speed rail. The RAND Corporation proposed something like this recently, and it would be vital considering Palestine's only major airport is in Gaza and it would ostensibly be the point of entry for foreign travelers who would likely need to get to the West Bank.

As for water rights, the Jordan River's depletion is the biggest environmental crisis facing the Jordan Valley. Israel, Palestine and Jordan ought to form a joint water development authority that they each appoint board members to oversee and that they each contribute funds to.

[Indy Texas 🇺🇦🇵🇸]

The Native Americans should demand we all pack up and move back to other continents?  How deep does this rabbit hole go?

False equivalency. The Native Americans still live in the US and are full US citizens with all rights and privileges therein. We didn't chase them off into Mexico and Canada and make them live in refugee camps.

Palestinians demanding a right to return is not the same as if they demanded that the Israelis move away.

[RosettaStoned]

 Far too generous to the so called Israelis.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Native Americans should demand we all pack up and move back to other continents?  How deep does this rabbit hole go?

False equivalency. The Native Americans still live in the US and are full US citizens with all rights and privileges therein. We didn't chase them off into Mexico and Canada and make them live in refugee camps.

You ever hear of the Trail of Tears?   Or how about the Nez Perce War in which we forcibly prevented the Nez Perce from fleeing to Canada as refugees after we broke our treaty with them and tried to force them onto a reservation far from where they lived.  We didn't force the Indians into other countries because we wanted to kill or contain them ourselves at the time.

Still I do agree there is one significant difference.  Native Americans are only about 1% of the population instead of around 50% as is the case with a unified Israel/Palestine.  Israel's demographic problem would be even worse had not the Irgun and other Zionist terrorists forced had not forced the Arabs to flee back when Israel was set up, or if the Arab states had chosen to place all the refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza.  We can tolerate the Native Americans if they choose to not assimilate because they are so few.  Israel can't tolerate giving all the Palestinians equality because then the Jewish State would no longer be Jewish.

[Indy Texas 🇺🇦🇵🇸]

The Native Americans should demand we all pack up and move back to other continents?  How deep does this rabbit hole go?

False equivalency. The Native Americans still live in the US and are full US citizens with all rights and privileges therein. We didn't chase them off into Mexico and Canada and make them live in refugee camps.

You ever hear of the Trail of Tears?   Or how about the Nez Perce War in which we forcibly prevented the Nez Perce from fleeing to Canada as refugees after we broke our treaty with them and tried to force them onto a reservation far from where they lived.  We didn't force the Indians into other countries because we wanted to kill or contain them ourselves at the time.

Still I do agree there is one significant difference.  Native Americans are only about 1% of the population instead of around 50% as is the case with a unified Israel/Palestine.  Israel's demographic problem would be even worse had not the Irgun and other Zionist terrorists forced had not forced the Arabs to flee back when Israel was set up, or if the Arab states had chosen to place all the refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza.  We can tolerate the Native Americans if they choose to not assimilate because they are so few.  Israel can't tolerate giving all the Palestinians equality because then the Jewish State would no longer be Jewish.

So basically, there aren't enough Jews concentrated in one area for there to be a majority-Jewish country without committing genocide and deportation and human rights violations.

They have another option - make their country a lot smaller so that it only contains areas with overwhelming Jewish majorities.

Or they can just accept that they have a right to live there as Jews and practice their religion and culture freely - but they don't have a right to expect or demand that everyone else around them do so too. There simply aren't enough of them to guarantee that.

It's as illogical as if Episcopalians in America tried to create a majority-Episcopalian state somewhere in the US and were willing to kick a bunch of Baptists out to do it. (Episcopalians make up about the same proportion of the US population as Jews do).

[Redalgo]

I would say that the creation of an independent Palestine would remove the impetus for rocket attacks and suicide bombings. And if they didn't, I would say Israel would be perfectly justified in retaliating against those.

But you can't imply that Israel has more of a right to defend itself than a hypothetical Palestine would. Small countries simply have these problems. If you want to live in a country that's mostly insulated from foreign attacks, go live on an island in the South Pacific. I would support Palestine being demilitarized for a "normalization period" lasting about 15 years during which they and Israel would be expected to patch up their relations and let time heal wounds. During that time, UN troops would be present at the border in a DMZ-type arrangement.

The West Bank and Gaza would have to be accessible without entering Israeli territory. West Germany managed to allow free travel between itself and West Berlin through East Germany via an elevated international highway. Basically you got on the highway and weren't allowed to get off until you reached your final destination; there were small turnoffs with gas stations and all exits were manned by East German border patrol. You could do something similar between Gaza and the West Bank, perhaps with a roadway as well as high-speed rail. The RAND Corporation proposed something like this recently, and it would be vital considering Palestine's only major airport is in Gaza and it would ostensibly be the point of entry for foreign travelers who would likely need to get to the West Bank.

As for water rights, the Jordan River's depletion is the biggest environmental crisis facing the Jordan Valley. Israel, Palestine and Jordan ought to form a joint water development authority that they each appoint board members to oversee and that they each contribute funds to.

One of my concerns is that religious extremists would continue attacks against Israeli targets for lack of satisfaction with the hypothetical peace agreement, because the Palestinian state may at least initially be weak and have difficulty enforcing its policies, and because economic conditions in Palestine are such that many young men disillusioned with their future prospects in life will continue to be ripe for the picking by Islamist organizations. It may also be difficult to convince Israel that it should coordinate with the Palestinian government to undertake limited strikes against terrorists rather than unilaterally deciding to bludgeon the whole nation into submission with its overwhelmingly superior measure of hard power. It is important for us to bear in mind that even in the event of a two-state solution, Israel will still be dominant in its relationship with Palestine unless the latter can enter a powerful alliance in counter to Israel. Peacekeeping forces will initially help but afterwards Palestine will still possess far less power than Israel.

That being said, I sympathize and align more so with the Palestinians than I do Israeli factions right now. It is of course important Palestine have armed forces. Before I only meant to express a belief of mine that many Israelis are apprehensive about Palestine having a military. Your position is very agreeable to me, and is what I would like to see happen during the transition.

Concerning connectivity betwixt Gaza and the West Bank, I think access to Israel itself is still very important though. Incomes are much higher and economic opportunities much better on the Israeli side of the border than in Palestine right now. Unless countries are willing to make huge investments in nation building as part of the peace process I think it will be necessary for many Palestinians to work in Israel to support families on the other side of the border - maybe kind of like how many Mexicans work in the States but are looking for jobs rather than citizenship or even permanent residence. Until living conditions markedly improve in Palestine I worry it will be easy for external factions to agitate unhappy Palestinians into stirring up trouble with Israel.

The water rights problem is one I have very little to offer on; yours is an idea I gladly accept!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I note that the really relevant part of his post - the reference to the Oder-Neisse line and the *ahem* 'population transfers' in the north of central Europe in the late 1940s - has been ignored. This is unfortunate because the two situations are about as comparable as situations get. Because in practice the creation of Israel and the conflict that followed resulted in a similar 'population transfer' in the Middle East to what was seen in that part of Europe: large numbers of Arabs fled from what is now Israel, and they were effectively replaced by large numbers of Jews fleeing - albeit over a couple of decades rather than a couple of years - from the rest of the Middle East.* This an uncomfortable and emotive subject, but in general I think it is better to accept that what's done is done. While the Right of Return is an understandable demand, it is not now a reasonable one.

_{*Which in turn led directly to a fundamental change in the social and political composition of Israel, leading ultimately to the victory of Likud in 1977.}

[Indy Texas 🇺🇦🇵🇸]

I note that the really relevant part of his post - the reference to the Oder-Neisse line and the *ahem* 'population transfers' in the north of central Europe in the late 1940s - has been ignored. This is unfortunate because the two situations are about as comparable as situations get. Because in practice the creation of Israel and the conflict that followed resulted in a similar 'population transfer' in the Middle East to what was seen in that part of Europe: large numbers of Arabs fled from what is now Israel, and they were effectively replaced by large numbers of Jews fleeing - albeit over a couple of decades rather than a couple of years - from the rest of the Middle East.* This an uncomfortable and emotive subject, but in general I think it is better to accept that what's done is done. While the Right of Return is an understandable demand, it is not now a reasonable one.

_{*Which in turn led directly to a fundamental change in the social and political composition of Israel, leading ultimately to the victory of Likud in 1977.}

Pre-1967 Israel was a much more admirable, civilized place than post-1967 Israel. The former was populated by educated, civic-minded, liberal (in politics and worldview) Jews. You now have a country that is mainly comprised of Mizrahi/Sephardic Jews who have enormous chips on their shoulders (I believe the Israeli defense minister who wants to turn Iran into a parking lot was actually born in Iran), and ex-Soviet Jews who tend to be the worst kind due to their horrid racist tendencies and refusal to assimilate into Israeli society (insisting on speaking Russian rather than Hebrew, for example).

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

It's a no go. The reasonable is Israel is from the Nile to the Euphrates. The Saudis would be getting a lot of new faces in their land.

[H. Ross Peron]

It's a no go. The reasonable is Israel is from the Nile to the Euphrates. The Saudis would be getting a lot of new faces in their land.

You are kidding right?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It's a no go. The reasonable is Israel is from the Nile to the Euphrates. The Saudis would be getting a lot of new faces in their land.

You are kidding right?

Alas, he's not.

[politicallefty]

This is probably a bit too generous to the Israelis, but I still voted yes. If this were an actual proposal that came out of serious negotiations, I'd probably be adamantly for it as the best possible solution to the current conflict.