Israeli-Palestinian peace

[Horza]

At times I feel like the answer is getting the Koreans, the Vietnamese and possibly the Bhutanese to disarm both sides and arbitrate all disputes. These wacky monotheists can not be allowed to get us all killed.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Galactus,

[quote name='Bruce Galactus' post='1633982' date='Dec 30 2008, 10.50']Which is part of the problem. The only thing the palestinians can offer is A) formal recognition of the state of Israel (which Fatah has already done, mind, but it's still on the table for Hamas) and B) an end to hostilities. Israel has much bigger space to manuever in that regard.[/quote]

Sure, but isn't the choice to repeatedly attack your neighbor to force concessions at the negotiating table just a protection racket between nations? How can the world community justify this use of force?

[Shryke]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1634325' date='Dec 30 2008, 16.25']Sure, but isn't the choice to repeatedly attack your neighbor to force concessions at the negotiating table just a protection racket between nations? How can the world community justify this use of force?[/quote]

I'm sure that's one way to look at it. But that's what violence for political ends ALWAYS is. The world community justifies it all the time.

When you have no other avenues (or FEEL you have no other avenues), you use violence to force people to listen to you.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Shryke,

That doesn't make it right or change the fact that acceding to such coersion simply makes the coersing party more willing to dish out the same the next time they want something from you. And why not, now the coersive party knows forcedul coersion works.

[Shryke]

Yeah, them Irish just won't stop bombing the English everytime they want lowered tariffs.

[Moshe Goldberg Rubinshteyn]

In the long run there is only one stable solution possible. What is today Israel, the Gaza strip and the Westbanks have to be united, and all inhabitants of the region regardless of religion and/or ethnicity, should have equal civil rights. Everyone should be able to settle where they want. Palestinians who were driven off their land should be compensated (this could be done with foreign aid). Palestinian refugees and their descendants should be allowed back if they so chose. The question is, how do we get from here to there?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Shryke,

[quote name='Shryke' post='1634362' date='Dec 30 2008, 17.03']Yeah, them Irish just won't stop bombing the English everytime they want lowered tariffs.[/quote]

Are you saying that Hamas would agree to disarm as the IRA has? Don't forget that extremists in the IRA (the "Real IRA") have bombed since the peace accords. The IRA has helped swash them, will Hamas do the same with its extremists?

Cobblestones,

You are probably right but I don't know if the parties to this conflict can get there.

[Shryke]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1634368' date='Dec 30 2008, 17.12']Are you saying that Hamas would agree to disarm as the IRA has? Don't forget that extremists in the IRA (the "Real IRA") have bombed since the peace accords. The IRA has helped swash them, will Hamas do the same with its extremists?[/quote]

To a certain extent. If not, other groups will take over.

Remember that improved living conditions will do most of the work. The better peoples lives are, the less they will respond with extreme measures.

The problem is that "Stop attacking us or we'll bomb you to hell" doesn't work when your already in hell.

[Galactus]

[quote]It only takes one side to start a war, but two are required to establish peace. Until Israel's right to exist is unequivocally recognized by the Arab League states, and the terrorist groups are likewise unequivocally disowned, no end to the conflict is possible.[/quote]

Yep, that would presumably be the end-point of the war.

But it is a consequence of the peace (well, formal acknowledgment isn't *strictly* speaking neccessary I suppose, but if hostilities have ended I see little reason why it wouldn't come in time)

But the issue is that this would (by it's very nature) come at the end of the peace-process (IE: When there is actual peace) FIRST you need to negotiate a basis for said peace.

[Bronn Stone]

[quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1634206' date='Dec 30 2008, 10.59']It only takes one side to start a war, but two are required to establish peace. Until Israel's right to exist is unequivocally recognized by the Arab League states, and the terrorist groups are likewise unequivocally disowned, no end to the conflict is possible.[/quote]

Absurd. The Arab League can believe whatever they want about Israel's right to exist as long as they aren't DOING anything about it.

[TheKassi]

Does anyone else see the irony in offering appeasement to a radical political organization that wants to kill all the Jews as a wise method for obtaining peace?

[Piper]

[quote name='TheKassi' post='1634527' date='Dec 30 2008, 21.05']Does anyone else see the irony in offering appeasement to a radical political organization that wants to kill all the Jews as a wise method for obtaining peace?[/quote]

Doesn't the PA not have the same radical mission statement as Hamas? Why can't Israel deal with them, get things worked out with the West Bank, and see if the progress made there will be enough to get the Gazans to force Hamas to deal?

ETA: I guess there could be some reticence for a piecemeal peace solution, in that if they don't get everything while giving up everything they could get screwed later.

[G'Kar]

[quote name='TheKassi' post='1634527' date='Dec 30 2008, 21.05']Does anyone else see the irony in offering appeasement to a radical political organization that wants to kill all the Jews as a wise method for obtaining peace?[/quote]

It is ironic. The force trying to disrupt previous peace attempts now needs to be a part of the peace process. Sure Hamas is fucking crazy with unrealistic expectations and demands considering they bring little to the negotiating table, but I guess it is better then nothing.

ETA: Yeah, that "Death to Israel and the Jews" thing is kind of problematic. They should probably dump that.

[The Anti-Targ]

The only real solution is a one-state solution, but it will probably take a failed 2-state attempt for both sides to realise it. The 1-state solution must of necessity be an absolutely secular state where the rights and freedoms of all the religions represented among the population are guaranteed.

Among many of the most objective and fair-minded Israelis and Palestinians, who are committed to a reconciliation between their respective peoples, rather than any sort of tense, begrudging acceptance of each other's presence, the one state solution is becomming increasingly regarded as outcome most likely to lead to a lasting peace. Even though they preferred a 2-state solution this outcome is receding further and further from the realms of possibility. I prefer to listen to those who would see friendly relations exist between the Israelis and Palestinians on the basis of equal rights, than those who believe one group deserves and has a right to more than the other.

Listen to the groups who are made up of both Palestinians and Israelis seeking an equitable outcome to this mess, instead of listening to the extremists on both sides who only ever end up antagonising each other.

[Shryke]

[quote name='TheKassi' post='1634527' date='Dec 30 2008, 21.05']Does anyone else see the irony in offering appeasement to a radical political organization that wants to kill all the Jews as a wise method for obtaining peace?[/quote]

You speak like insane radicals ready to kill jews to further their own goals are exclusive to only one side.

[url="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/56995.html"]http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/56995.html[/url]
[url="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/world/middleeast/26settlers.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin"]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/world/mi...amp;oref=slogin[/url]

[G'Kar]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1634557' date='Dec 30 2008, 21.54']You speak like insane radicals ready to kill jews to further their own goals are exclusive to only one side.

[url="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/56995.html"]http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/56995.html[/url]
[url="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/world/middleeast/26settlers.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin"]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/world/mi...amp;oref=slogin[/url][/quote]

Yes becuase just like Hamas, these radical settlers are the government.

[TheKassi]

Perhaps I speak like someone who just thinks a bit of irony is ironic.

[G'Kar]

Reminds me of a line from the Simpsons.

Homer: And you were caught by the very man who was out to catch you.

Skinner: (deadpan) How ironic.

/random tangent

[the silent speaker]

How about this:
1) All of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank are one state, where everyone has equal civil rights. This state is still "Israel, the Jewish state," but Palestinian Arabs are to be on equal footing with Israeli Arabs, who are already (legally, if not socially) on equal footing with Israeli Jews, and continuing societal efforts are made to bring about equal social footing as well.
2) All terrorist organizations like Hamas are disbanded, and the title to resources under control of those organizations is quashed. Those resources are forfeit and revert to the Israeli government, but it is understood that the Hamas widows-and-orphans fund is replaced by Israeli social services. Privately-owned real property does not revert to the Israeli government.
3) Amnesty is afforded unconditionally for all terrorist-related activities prior to the accord except direct murder of Israeli citizens.
4) All Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are offered full Israeli citizenship as though natural-born. However, to accept they must disavow all actions aimed at disrupting the State of Israel, and it is to be made clear to them that if they breach this they are subject to deportation. Those who do not wish to disavow the Qassams will not be permitted to remain, but their personal property goes with them and their real property (and any personal property left behind) is subject to a commercially fair forced sale the proceeds of which also go with them. The relocation is at Israel's expense.
5) If someone accepts Israeli citizenship and continues to engage in terrorist acts, that person is subject to deportation. Title to real property is quashed and forfeit and reverts to the state; personal property goes with the deportee, but title to anything left behind is quashed and forfeit. The relocation is at the deportee's expense.
6) Families are not broken up on deportation, but any minor children will be permitted to re-enter Israel on reaching majority if they so choose, and the same offer of citizenship in step 4 is available to them for two generations.
7) People living in refugee camps in Israel or countries bordering Israel are offered citizenship pursuant to step 4, but are not considered to hold title to contested prior-occupied real property unless they can prove that they owned it (or title would have passed to them in the natural course), it was not adversely possessed by other than pure main force (i.e. if the current occupants bought it, that purchase will be upheld), and adverse possession has not been had for more than 40 years (or term+10 in Israeli law, whichever is greater). Any refugees who have no real property anymore will be resettled elsewhere in Israel.

I am not worried about the demographics. If the modern state is part of God's promise to the Jewish people, He is surely aware of the numbers and can take whatever countermeasures He deems fit; if not, then it might as well be a state like all the other nations. However, I do feel that the harsh remedy of deportation is necessary since this is all predicated on the fusion [i]not [/i]being a pretext for destroyers to slip behind the defenses; anyone who would give the lie to that undermines the entire peace treaty.

[Bellis]

I favor some sort of one-state solution myself, in the sense that I favor everyone coming together to hold hands and sing kumbaya. Inevitably, I sense that a one-state eventually will happen, probably much like anti-Targ's model. But then, inevitably, I feel that the modern nation-state will probably evolve into a more open, trans-national, global union. I mean this in the long term, perhaps in 100 or 300 years. Like the Star Trek future.

Right now, in the short term, I suspect the only politically feasible solution will be a two-state solution. The demographic spector is looming. The Jewish people, having obtained a Jewish state and held onto it for 60 years, are unlikely to want to give it up for something that would no longer be Jewish, no matter how "democratic".