What should Israel do?

[Deepak]

That doesn't justify the ethnic cleansing of one Palestinian. Any Jew that was thrown out of their home deserves compensation just as the Palestinians thrown from their homes or prevented from returning to them deserve compensation. Instead they have been given decades of misery.

The point here is not to justify, but rather to inject some facts about what the situation was prior to partition. That is to say, the reaction of regional actors when they rejected the two-state solution and in retaliation to the partition plan established by the UN.

I asked earlier what you think an equitable resolution to the matter at the time would have been, a question that you didn't actually answer, but it seems like the process you outlined was exactly what happened, and exactly what drew retaliation from regional actors in the form of ethnic cleansing and aggressive war.

So how exactly would a two-state solution have been implemented without forcefully relocating people, as unfortunate a thing as that is? So again I'll ask - what would your proposed solution have been? A one-state solution? A two-state solution were everyone stays where they are?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Long before now, there should have been a U.N. peacekeeping force in all of Israel and also an inspection team looking into Israel's nuclear bomb making. We have instead allowed Israeli and Zionist sympathizers to bluster their way out of compliance with U. N. resolutions. I can only suspect that U.S. companies such as Raytheon have enjoyed a cash cow with Israel and they are still not willing to give it up. To them, profit comes before humanity.

In other words, genocide. Peacekeepers are useless against terrorism in the first place and furthermore the UN peacekeepers aren't interested in trying to do their job there because that would make them targets of the terrorists.

They should feel lucky if they escape prosecution if and when this whole pile of hot shit finally cools down. The world will indeed be lucky if it can cool down without nuclear war residue. We need to stop this mad mutual condemnation which is nothing but a Kabuki production to keep certain people in power. No man's grip on power is as important as peace at this time. It is hard for many of us to see this because it isn't happening here, even though we are seeing things more and more like it in Missouri.

We must understand that we cannot long endure as a security state where everybody mistrusts everybody else.

The only way it will end up without nuclear war is if the Islamists cool it. Otherwise they'll get the bomb and use it and somebody will flatten them.

 

[arkirk]

In other words, genocide. Peacekeepers are useless against terrorism in the first place and furthermore the UN peacekeepers aren't interested in trying to do their job there because that would make them targets of the terrorists.

They should feel lucky if they escape prosecution if and when this whole pile of hot shit finally cools down. The world will indeed be lucky if it can cool down without nuclear war residue. We need to stop this mad mutual condemnation which is nothing but a Kabuki production to keep certain people in power. No man's grip on power is as important as peace at this time. It is hard for many of us to see this because it isn't happening here, even though we are seeing things more and more like it in Missouri.

We must understand that we cannot long endure as a security state where everybody mistrusts everybody else.

The only way it will end up without nuclear war is if the Islamists cool it. Otherwise they'll get the bomb and use it and somebody will flatten them.

You really hate those Palestinians don't you? You just cannot believe your Jewish clients in Israel can do anything bad do you? You do have free speech...and you have spoken as I would expect you to. What is your connection with this issue anyway?

 

[untermensche]

The forces behind the attacks and behind the ethnic cleansing of Jews were not the Palestinians.

But every force that has attacked Israel has been Arab allies of each other.

That still doesn't justify the ethnic cleansing of one Palestinian.

Israeli oppression has been answered with incredible restraint by the Palestinians. The Israelis deserve far more for their decades of crimes.

Yeah, you're out to bash Israel rather than to solve the problem.

I'm standing up for law and order. Crimes deserve punishment.

And when people feel they have no way to stop the crimes being carried out against them they have the right to resist with violence.

 

[untermensche]

Any scenario that beings with; And what if the Nazi's had won WWII, is frivolous.

You have to pull the matter into the UN. You have to first of all get from Israel their map of the solution. Then get a map from the Palestinian side. It might be necessary to first carry out another election on the Palestinian side.

And from the two maps you work out a compromise.

One of the key things the Palestinians need is a strong infrastructure. A strong and experienced police force. A strong judicial system. An ability to protect people from violent gangs and to stop these gangs from carrying out acts of random violence.

You can't say to Hamas, in the chaos that is Gaza, we expect total control of all persons. That is not realistic. So the initial goal will be to rebuild the Palestinian cities and to free up it's economy.

All of this requires the cooperation of the US. But the US is a supporter of Israel, not an impartial judge, and the US should have no special role.

We're not talking about some hypothetical scenario involving life in America during the 2020s had the Nazis won. The timeframe we're talking about here is immediately after WW2 was fought where the regional Arabs, who were taking aggressive action against the regional Jews, having signed an alliance with Nazi Germany who were taking aggressive action against Great Britain specifically and the Allied countries generally.

The matter of partition was put in front of the UN, and partition proposals taking into consideration land ownership and existing population were drawn up. The Arab leaders reject any sort of partition plan, and I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to track down commentary from their side about the matter of a Jewish state existing. The proposal where Arabs maintained complete control of the region, quite obviously, was an untenable one and the eventual partition plan recommended by the newly formed UN passed by a large majority.

The US supported it, since they're quite obviously puppets of the Jewish conspiracy, but so did most of the Eastern Bloc, Western Europe, and Latin America. Of the permanent Security Council members the UK and RoC voted against the measure.

I thought you wanted a plan on how to move forward now.

It seems all you want to do is live in the past and claim the situation is hopeless.

 

[Deepak]

Sort of a "the sins of the fathers" idea, I take it.

To wit:

That still doesn't justify the ethnic cleansing of one Palestinian.

Sort of a "the sins of the fathers" idea, I take it. The average person living in that occupied jungle was born into it and it has nothing whatever to do with the deplorable conditions on the ground today. It is today and tomorrow that this thread should dealing. Hundreds of thousands of people are living in cramped quarters without proper sanitation and drinkable water. There is a time to deal with this and it is now. Either we are interested in human welfare or we are not. Which is it?

For civilization to occur, we have to put away our differences. Humans seem stuck in the past and this will come back to haunt us when some plague sweeps through the area. Of course there ARE those who really don't give a damn and I suppose they have freedom of speech. When civil society is systematically destroyed by design, that design must be ultimately undone and then we can begin to start talking in terms of the things that count to real people like sanitation, health, housing, food, and medical services...not to mention the right to trade and to make a living. These human capacities have been denied to the Gaza residents for far too long. What somebody's grandfather said in the midst of calamity is perhaps interesting, but not what is important at this time.

Long before now, there should have been a U.N. peacekeeping force in all of Israel and also an inspection team looking into Israel's nuclear bomb making. We have instead allowed Israeli and Zionist sympathizers to bluster their way out of compliance with U. N. resolutions. I can only suspect that U.S. companies such as Raytheon have enjoyed a cash cow with Israel and they are still not willing to give it up. To them, profit comes before humanity.

They should feel lucky if they escape prosecution if and when this whole pile of hot shit finally cools down. The world will indeed be lucky if it can cool down without nuclear war residue. We need to stop this mad mutual condemnation which is nothing but a Kabuki production to keep certain people in power. No man's grip on power is as important as peace at this time. It is hard for many of us to see this because it isn't happening here, even though we are seeing things more and more like it in Missouri.

We must understand that we cannot long endure as a security state where everybody mistrusts everybody else.

But no, not a sins of the father idea at all. If you'll remember this entire exchange started with my statement that forgiveness needs to be mutual and not unilateral. Understanding how 'the rat' got cornered, as it were, is somewhat important to establishing the best course of action. There was no established peace between the times of the grandfather, to the father, to the son.

Working backwards, then, the First Intifada happened as a reaction to an attack on Palestinians, which was a reaction to an attack on Israelis. This can be traced back recursively to '48 where if bygones were left to be bygones each side could have their own bit of turf. Prior to that, there's a chain of unilateral attacks on the Jews of the area which can be traced back to the peaceful infancies of the Palestinian nationalist and Jewish nationalist movements. This isn't ancient history - all of these events happened in less than the course of the average human's lifespan. The Israelis, too, feel they're cornered rats - it wasn't that long ago that every Arab state in the region declared war on them as a retaliatory measure for existing. Their desire to have the bomb is not very surprising, any more than Iran wanting one would be.

So the rocket attacks, though they might not be effective, do evoke a response. And not changing the charter, though it's 30 years old, does evoke a response.

I agree that the UN should move peacekeeping troops into the area, and it should have happened immediately after Oslo broke down. The PLO recognizing Israel was progress, and Hamas recognizing Israel is also real progress.

 

[arkirk]

Deepak seems hopelessly lost in the past. The conditions in Gaza today are perhaps no worse than anyplace else hit with a serious natural disaster. Gaza is in need of disaster relief. The problems there are not beyond remedy if the nations of the world would only cooperate. I am quite sure that if relief started pouring into Gaza, it would not be Hamas that would be shooting at the humanitarian relief workers. I can't say as much for the Israelis. They murdered seven people on one of the humanitarian flotilla a few years ago and turned back much needed aid for the Gazans.

They need to be warned and then the relief effort needs to start NOW. It needs to be massive and Israel can have no say in prohibiting it. Of course this will not happen. It is like there are 1.7 million people stranded DUE TO NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN. As far as terrorism goes, Begin's men sent slain Brittish soldiers' heads to their mothers in wooden boxes. Israel has no special lock on human decency. Where is Obama's "red line" today? He just sent more weapons to Israel. Our leaders just have blind eyes when it comes to Gaza. We Americans own the biggest part of this atrocity,

Colin Powell said "If you break it, you own it." It was our arms that broke it. I disagree with Powell however. It should be IF YOU BREAK IT, YOU FIX IT AND GIVE IT BACK TO ITS RIGHTFUL OWNER. Instead of doing that however, we just send more armament to Israel. How can we talk about justice and continue like this?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I thought you wanted a plan on how to move forward now.

It seems all you want to do is live in the past and claim the situation is hopeless.

We want a plan to move forward although we understand that that's basically impossible now.

You want to punish the Jews and think that that will somehow solve the problem. It only will after you have succeeding in killing them off--but then the Islamists will just turn on others.

 

[steve_bnk]

The problem for Gazans is a small densely populated area with no where to go. Israel restricts land and sea access. It is essentially a walled ghetto despite Israeli spokespersons saying they have freedom of travel.

At this point Israel needs to end the blockade and open Gaza sea ports. The blockade has not kept out weapons. If they lift the blockade and are again subjected to rocket barrages, then the scale tilts to Israel. It is a win-win strategy for Isreal.

If anything it ends the smuggling profits for Hamas.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Yeah, you're out to bash Israel rather than to solve the problem.

The problem is that Israel wants what it cannot have.

The solution is to discourage them from taking it.

If and when the Palestinians' desire to claim Israeli land actually becomes a problem -- and not a far off, lofty pipe dream on the Jihadist Grand Bucket List -- then the exact same solution applies to them as well. In the HERE AND NOW, however, Israel is the problem.

 

[Deepak]

The only way it will end up without nuclear war is if the Islamists cool it. Otherwise they'll get the bomb and use it and somebody will flatten them.

I'm still of the opinion that nuclear war is very unlikely. The *ahem* fallout in public opinion would be massive and not just for the country that has it but for much of the Islamic world more broadly. Even then the likelihood that they manage to develop it without getting smashed first is a longshot.

I thought you wanted a plan on how to move forward now.

It seems all you want to do is live in the past and claim the situation is hopeless.

What I'm failing to understand, since there are claims that the land was stolen and that the implementation of a two-state solution was ethnic cleansing perpetrated by Israel, is how your suggestion for now differs from the exact same suggestion for then.

How should I reconcile that?

I undestand that the original agreement was largely rejected by one side, but at its core I think it was the most equitable solution available and thus think it's the most equitable solution now - that is to say a two-state solution with '67 borders and sovereignty and autonomy for both sides.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

What I'm failing to understand, since there are claims that the land was stolen and that the implementation of a two-state solution was ethnic cleansing perpetrated by Israel, is how your suggestion for now differs from the exact same suggestion for then.

The difference is this: the Palestinians are willing to let the past go and form a state on what little land they can still realistically make a claim to. Namely, the parts of the West Bank and Gaza outside of Israel's 1967 borders. The are, in other words, willing to look the other way on that ethnic cleansing in exchange for peace.

Let that sink in for a bit.

I undestand that the original agreement was largely rejected by one side, but at its core I think it was the most equitable solution available and thus think it's the most equitable solution now - that is to say a two-state solution with '67 borders and sovereignty and autonomy for both sides.

Netanyahu has explicitly said that he will never allow the creation of a Palestinian state.

So for the moment, Israel is the problem.

 

[Deepak]

The difference is this: the Palestinians are willing to let the past go and form a state on what little land they can still realistically make a claim to. Namely, the parts of the West Bank and Gaza outside of Israel's 1967 borders. The are, in other words, willing to look the other way on that ethnic cleansing in exchange for peace.

Let that sink in for a bit.

There's nothing to let sink in here - in that you apparently don't understand the quandary that I'm in.

The '48 partition was enacted by the UN, not unilaterally by regional Jews. A two-state solution necessitated people being uprooted and relocated. If you think that's a case of ethnic cleansing on the part of the newly formed Israeli state then what solution should have been enacted at the time?

A one-state solution? Who would have control here?

A two-state solution where everyone stays where they are? How would such a thing be implemented?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The difference is this: the Palestinians are willing to let the past go and form a state on what little land they can still realistically make a claim to. Namely, the parts of the West Bank and Gaza outside of Israel's 1967 borders. The are, in other words, willing to look the other way on that ethnic cleansing in exchange for peace.

Let that sink in for a bit.

There's nothing to let sink in here - in that you apparently don't understand the quandary that I'm in.

The '48 partition was enacted by the UN, not unilaterally by regional Jews. A two-state solution necessitated people being uprooted and relocated.

Yes, and the "uproot and relocate" aspect of that plan was the Zionists' idea. The two state solution was not, they considered it a compromise on the way to their ACTUAL goal of establishing undisputed Jewish control of Eretz Israel.

If you think that's a case of ethnic cleansing on the part of the newly formed Israeli state then what solution should have been enacted at the time?

Nothing should have been enacted. Carving up the Ottoman Empire like a giant turkey (pun slightly intended) divided closely-related ethnic groups that had worked together for centuries and combined other groups that barely tolerated each other. Palestine is just another example of this.

The Zionists were going to do what the Zionists were going to do. Like any radical group, they did not consider compromise or fairness to be compatible with their objectives. They were totally ruthless in the pursuit of their goal and for the most part they were able to achieve it. Then, as now, THE REST OF US have a choice to make: do we support the cause of Zionism and the oppression and slaughter of the Palestinians, or do we tell them "We cannot condone this, we cannot support you. You're on your own."

Those are the choices WE have. Israel has its own choices to make.

 

[Deepak]

There's nothing to let sink in here - in that you apparently don't understand the quandary that I'm in.

The '48 partition was enacted by the UN, not unilaterally by regional Jews. A two-state solution necessitated people being uprooted and relocated.

Yes, and the "uproot and relocate" aspect of that plan was the Zionists' idea. The two state solution was not, they considered it a compromise on the way to their ACTUAL goal of establishing undisputed Jewish control of Eretz Israel.

If you think that's a case of ethnic cleansing on the part of the newly formed Israeli state then what solution should have been enacted at the time?

Nothing should have been enacted. Carving up the Ottoman Empire like a giant turkey (pun slightly intended) divided closely-related ethnic groups that had worked together for centuries and combined other groups that barely tolerated each other. Palestine is just another example of this.

The Zionists were going to do what the Zionists were going to do. Like any radical group, they did not consider compromise or fairness to be compatible with their objectives. They were totally ruthless in the pursuit of their goal and for the most part they were able to achieve it. Then, as now, THE REST OF US have a choice to make: do we support the cause of Zionism and the oppression and slaughter of the Palestinians, or do we tell them "We cannot condone this, we cannot support you. You're on your own."

Those are the choices WE have. Israel has its own choices to make.

This is quite simply preposterous. The Ottoman Empire existing after WW1 is a bit of a stretch, but both the Palestinian and Jewish Nationalist movements sided with the Triple Entente whereas the Ottoman Empire was one of the Central Powers. Even if in the, admittedly unlikely, event that the Ottoman Empire continued to exist after its defeat neither party desired to be a part of it and wanted sovereignty.

And as I mentioned about a half dozen times already the Faisal-Weizmann agreement was a mutual one-state agreement. Compromise and fairness were certainly compatible with their both parties' objectives and had been from the late 19th Century to 1920. 1920 marked the year that the Arab population began riots and attacks on the Jewish population in response to Jewish immigration into the region - something which the Faisal-Weizmann agreement encouraged and onto land which was purchased from Arab landowners. Into the mid '30s multiple commissions investigating the causes for and possible resolutions to the increasing conflict in the region recommended a two-state solution. The '48 partition also enacted a two-state solution.

The key component to a two-state solution is that the respective parties will be split, and populations will be relocated in accordance with the split. Read the Peel Commission report if you don't believe me - this wasn't something which was a Zionist idea, it's the defining characteristic of a two-state solution.

Throughout the negotiations leading up to partition the Arab states refused to participate, threatened to declare war when such a state was established, and then declared was immediately as it was.

Is Twitter your primary source of information?

 

[Jayjay]

Two-state solution now on 1967 borders would be fair, but in 1948 it was not reasonable. For one thing, the Jewish state was demographically only slightly more than 50% Jewish, whereas the Arab state was over 90% Arab. And for reasons that don't pertain to demographics at all, the Negev desert and access to Red Sea were to be granted solely to the Jews. What does that tell about the fairness of the plan?

Arabs had every reason to reject the plan. A reasonable solution based on demographics at the time would have been limited autonomy for the Jewish areas at best.

 

[Deepak]

Two-state solution now on 1967 borders would be fair, but in 1948 it was not reasonable. For one thing, the Jewish state was demographically only slightly more than 50% Jewish, whereas the Arab state was over 90% Arab. And for reasons that don't pertain to demographics at all, the Negev desert and access to Red Sea were to be granted solely to the Jews. What does that tell about the fairness of the plan?

Arabs had every reason to reject the plan. A reasonable solution based on demographics at the time would have been limited autonomy for the Jewish areas at best.

The rationale here was to maximize the number of Jews in that state and the Negev desert was set aside specifically to house Jewish emigres, in accordance with prior agreements. The Arab side did have indirect access to the Red Sea by way of the Mediterranean and also controlled all of the region's aquifers.

Not necessarily saying that this was the fairest solution - but providing the thinking as I understand it. Certainly entering into negotiations would have been the optimal course of action rather than walking away from the table.

Limited autonomy, I'd think, would be untenable but I'm not sure what this would specifically entail. If it's a one-state solution I'm certain that wouldn't have been possible.

 

[Arctish]

But no, not a sins of the father idea at all. If you'll remember this entire exchange started with my statement that forgiveness needs to be mutual and not unilateral. Understanding how 'the rat' got cornered, as it were, is somewhat important to establishing the best course of action. There was no established peace between the times of the grandfather, to the father, to the son.

Working backwards, then, the First Intifada happened as a reaction to an attack on Palestinians, which was a reaction to an attack on Israelis. This can be traced back recursively to '48 where if bygones were left to be bygones each side could have their own bit of turf. Prior to that, there's a chain of unilateral attacks on the Jews of the area which can be traced back to the peaceful infancies of the Palestinian nationalist and Jewish nationalist movements.

This is simply not true. The attacks went both ways.

Zionist terrorists were bombing markets, tossing grenades at lines of people, conducting drive by shootings, kidnapping and murdering people throughout the 1930s-1940s, right up to the founding of the State of Israel, at which point they officially became the Israeli armed forces. They killed hundreds and maimed thousands.

Ignoring that truth doesn't help anything. You know the saying "The first step to solving a problem is to admit you have one"? Well, the first step towards reconciliation is to admit each side has legitimate grievances.

I agree that the UN should move peacekeeping troops into the area, and it should have happened immediately after Oslo broke down. The PLO recognizing Israel was progress, and Hamas recognizing Israel is also real progress.

I agree too. Clinton should have insisted on getting the Oslo Accords back on track at Camp David, not tried to replace the Accords with a crappier offer to the Palestinians.

 

[Juma]

HAMAS won't stop rocketing and won't agree to a cease fire. Therefore Israel ought to continue its counter attacks.

Non sequitur.
Israel should help the palestinians. Then the support for Hamas would dwindle.
It is the attacks from Israel that has created the support Hamas.

That is the only thing that can solve this issue: that Israel turns it other cheek.

 

[Arctish]

And as I mentioned about a half dozen times already the Faisal-Weizmann agreement was a mutual one-state agreement. Compromise and fairness were certainly compatible with their both parties' objectives and had been from the late 19th Century to 1920. 1920 marked the year that the Arab population began riots and attacks on the Jewish population in response to Jewish immigration into the region - something which the Faisal-Weizmann agreement encouraged and onto land which was purchased from Arab landowners. Into the mid '30s multiple commissions investigating the causes for and possible resolutions to the increasing conflict in the region recommended a two-state solution. The '48 partition also enacted a two-state solution.

The key component to a two-state solution is that the respective parties will be split, and populations will be relocated in accordance with the split. Read the Peel Commission report if you don't believe me - this wasn't something which was a Zionist idea, it's the defining characteristic of a two-state solution.

So a flood of immigrants arrives, and a proposal is made to separate the newcomers from the old-timers. Oh, btw, the old-timers will be forcibly relocated because, well, because that's how the newcomers want it. Also, the newcomers are spread pretty thin outside the Tel Aviv area, but anywhere they can create a slight majority will be theirs, and they have their eye on the most productive agricultural land and the areas with the best infrastructure.

Why in the world would the Palestinians have accepted that plan? Why would anyone? Nobody likes being told they have to move to make way for immigrants. Nobody likes being told their homes, farms, and businesses are going to be seized for the Greater Good.

Throughout the negotiations leading up to partition the Arab states refused to participate, threatened to declare war when such a state was established, and then declared was immediately as it was.

Let's not forget that Plan Dalet and the accompanying mayhem happened before the declaration of Israel's independence, which happened before the Arab states declared war. The war was already underway in Palestine when the neighboring States became involved.

Arab States were only interested in a plan that called for resident Palestinians to stay right where they were. No dividing the land, no relocating the civilians. Why was that bad?