Israel, if two state solution is dead. How to create a single state?

[James the Red]

According to Reza Aslan, this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhngb7c9j5U

Now if he is correct and two state solution is not possible, then how is Israel/Palestine going to go about making a single state? How would you propose it would be done?

I suppose the most logical answer is a federation of sorts, especially since there is that whole 'Israel is officially a Jewish State' (Like removing Arabic as an official language) stuff the Far-right is trying at the moment. They can keep their respective flags then, unless they want something like this flying over their embassies...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

What to call it?! Palisrael? Israelistine?! Nope.

But this brings into question Jerusalem, which Israel claims is its indivisible symbolic Capital and Palestinians want the western part as their actual capital for realsies. So, I guess it could be a three part Federation. With Jerusalem as its own city-state sort of thing, that way it can be the "symbolic Capital" of both sides while at the same time be independent of both sides, I'd call it the 'Jebusite Republic', but nobody would listen to me. Gaza needs to be connected to the West Bank because the Gaza strip is Palestine's port to the Mediterranean if/when the blockade is lifted, thus extremely valuable. So maybe building a railroad directly from Gaza to west bank if one doesn't already exist.

Then there is the Palestinian refugee Diaspora, Israel/Palestine is already a crowded place with tons of poverty/homelessness and high costs of living... I guess those guys are screwed. You know? Its almost like founding Israel in the first place was a bad idea altogether.

[Caligula's_Horse]

A joint Jewish-Palestinian state is nothing more then a civil war waiting to happen.
There is no feasible way to implement it that won't make a bad situation worse. The cultural, religions and economic differences are simply too great, and that's before we factor in the bad blood (and trust me, there's a lot of it).

The two state solution is also more realistic then people give it credit for, assuming you consider a scenario where the Palestinians declare independence unilaterally as a two state solution. It won't end the conflict, but then, neither will a negotiated solution. Some questions simply don't have any "good" answers, merely a selection of "bad" and "worse" ones.

[sumskilz]

Noam Chomsky proposed both Yugoslavia and Lebanon as two successful models on which to base an Israeli-Palestinian state.

[James the Red]

A joint Jewish-Palestinian state is nothing more then a civil war waiting to happen.
There is no feasible way to implement it that won't make a bad situation worse. The cultural, religions and economic differences are simply too great, and that's before we factor in the bad blood (and trust me, there's a lot of it).

The two state solution is also more realistic then people give it credit for, assuming you consider a scenario where the Palestinians declare independence unilaterally as a two state solution. It won't end the conflict, but then, neither will a negotiated solution. Some questions simply don't have any "good" answers, merely a selection of "bad" and "worse" ones.

Would the Palestinian state include the Israeli settlements in the West bank, or all the infrastructure surrounding them at least? Or would all the Israeli settlers have to pack up and move out? Or would Israel have to give up territory ells-where in compensation? I think many Israelis wouldn't accept any of those options, there is already a protest involving a tiny village being ordered to be removed, so imagine the uproar that would ensue if the new Palestinian state would mean thousands of settlers getting moved away. And where would they put them? Tel Aviv?
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...608042,00.html

But if the settlements stay, what about the infrastructure surrounding them that takes up so much space? If they get removed there would be an uproar about security, the Israeli settlements would be under the protection of Palestinian, not Israeli, forces. And I don't think Israelis would like the idea of trading away territory to compensate for the settlements either, what part of the country would they be willing to sell? The Golan Heights?

But if none of those things happens and the single state solution isn't implemented either, then Palestine would just be a rump state. What good would that be for the Palestinians?

[hellheaven1987]

Noam Chomsky proposed both Yugoslavia and Lebanon as two successful models on which to base an Israeli-Palestinian state.

[Caligula's_Horse]

Would the Palestinian state include the Israeli settlements in the West bank, or all the infrastructure surrounding them at least? Or would all the Israeli settlers have to pack up and move out? Or would Israel have to give up territory ells-where in compensation? I think many Israelis wouldn't accept any of those options, there is already a protest involving a tiny village being ordered to be removed, so imagine the uproar that would ensue if the new Palestinian state would mean thousands of settlers getting moved away. And where would they put them? Tel Aviv?
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...608042,00.html

But if the settlements stay, what about the infrastructure surrounding them that takes up so much space? If they get removed there would be an uproar about security, the Israeli settlements would be under the protection of Palestinian, not Israeli, forces. And I don't think Israelis would like the idea of trading away territory to compensate for the settlements either, what part of the country would they be willing to sell? The Golan Heights?

But if none of those things happens and the single state solution isn't implemented either, then Palestine would just be a rump state. What good would that be for the Palestinians?

Assuming a unilateral scenario, the Palestinian state would claim ownership over the entire West Bank and East Jerusalem, where upon Israel says something along the lines of "try to take them, see what happens".
Then Israel builds a Great Wall of China lookalike in the West Bank (designed to get as many land and Jews in and Palestinians out), a neo-Berlin Wall in Jerusalem, and the situation stagnates from there. Some population transfer might also take place. At some point Islamists are likely to try and take over Palestine, and whether they succeed or not dictates whether the West Bank turns into a hell hole like Gaza. One way or another, Gaza itself, under Hamas control, won't be part of the arrangement, so we may well end up with an East and West Palestine (which confusingly enough, would involve the West Bank in the East).

Seeing as a negotiated solution will likely never happen, the scenario proposed above is the most likely outcome. Its better then the current status quo for both Israelies and Palestinians, but not by much.
Again, no good solutions, just bad and worse ones.

Or we could try the Yugoslavian model, and wait for the civil war to start (a civil war with nukes at stake, let me remind you).
The Palestinians would have a majority, but the army would be mostly Jewish. The likely result is a Jewish victory followed by either another Palestinian diaspora and/or ethnic cleansing, then we're back to square one only with even more bad blood; lets try and avoid that, if at all possible, for both side's sake.

[m_1512]

I think it could work, provided both the communities try to co-exist in harmony. Take the US and India for example, each county has diverse population.

[Dave Strider]

The state is Palestine. Israel shouldn't have been created in the first place. It was a project of imperialism then, it's a project of imperialism (and apartheid, and genocide) now.

[Gaidin]

I find it hilarious you're worrying about the flag of all things...

[sumskilz]

The state is Palestine. Israel shouldn't have been created in the first place. It was a project of imperialism then, it's a project of imperialism (and apartheid, and genocide) now.

It seems like you might not understand the meaning of all the words you're repeating. The legitimacy of the creation of the state of Israel isn't actually the topic here. People with your type of perspective can make the same claim about the US (for example), but how far will it get them? Think about it, and you might realize how irrelevant your point is.

[Dave Strider]

It seems like you might not understand the meaning of all the words you're repeating. The legitimacy of the creation of the state of Israel isn't actually the topic here. People with your type of perspective can make the same claim about the US (for example), but how far will it get them? Think about it, and you might realize how irrelevant your point is.

Indeed they could make the same claim about the United States, considering the United States was also founded in a settler-colonialist manner which in turn also led to the genocide of the native populace, but the difference is that with Israel, we can hope to reverse the process and give the land back to those to whom it belongs. Perhaps give the current Israelis the status of the Amish here in America; allow them their communes and villages and leave them be to themselves. But the land is Palestine. Israel might point to an old book about some fairy tale about an old bearded dude leading his people out of an oppressive land under the advice of the mystic sky voice, but even then, the Philistines - from which the name "Palestine" is derived - were there already.

And no, I know what apartheid and genocide mean, and Israel commits both. Israel is disgustingly racist toward african-israelis, both in terms of the attitudes of the populace as well as segregated schools and laws which treat african non-jews differently. And Israel just killed 2,500 Palestinians - nearly all civilians - six months ago, as well as bombing roads, schools, marketplaces, hospitals...if that's not genocide, I don't know what is.

[Caligula's_Horse]

Indeed they could make the same claim about the United States, considering the United States was also founded in a settler-colonialist manner which in turn also led to the genocide of the native populace, but the difference is that with Israel, we can hope to reverse the process and give the land back to those to whom it belongs. Perhaps give the current Israelis the status of the Amish here in America; allow them their communes and villages and leave them be to themselves. But the land is Palestine. Israel might point to an old book about some fairy tale about an old bearded dude leading his people out of an oppressive land under the advice of the mystic sky voice, but even then, the Philistines - from which the name "Palestine" is derived - were there already.

And no, I know what apartheid and genocide mean, and Israel commits both. Israel is disgustingly racist toward african-israelis, both in terms of the attitudes of the populace as well as segregated schools and laws which treat african non-jews differently. And Israel just killed 2,500 Palestinians - nearly all civilians - six months ago, as well as bombing roads, schools, marketplaces, hospitals...if that's not genocide, I don't know what is.

That post is full of so much crap I don't know where to begin.

The Palestinians are actually just as much "new arrivals" to the territory as the Jews, in the sense that as recently as a century ago, the Palestinians didn't exist as a people. Under Ottoman rule, they were usually lumped together with the Syrians. Its only when the British conquered the region and passed a border between what would become Israel and Lebanon and Syria that the Palestinians started adopting a national identity distinct from the rest of the Levant.
Now that doesn't mean kick them out, but their claim to the land is still no better then our dusty old book (and just between you and me, the Zionist movement was always a lot more nationalist then religious; Israel's the most secular nation in the middle east).

As for the African Jews, they're only discriminated against in certain Orthodox privately funded institutions (which discriminate anything that isn't the right sect of Orthodox Jewish). Other then that, I've served with African Jews in the military, studied with them at a university, and worked alongside them in the private sector. They're not discriminated against in the slightest. You might be confusing the African Jews with Eritrean and Sudanese illegal immigrants we're trying to kick out, on account of them being illegal immigrants, not because of their skin color.

As for the recent war in Gaza, that's the result of an Islamist terrorist group called Hamas using civilians as human shields; its either allow them free reign to attack Israeli civilians, or take them out alongside their hostages. Just so that bleeding hearts like you that don't understand what fighting a war with a terrorist group means call for Israel to be punished.
If you compare Israel's actions in Gaza to what NATO troops did in Iraq and Afghanistan, you'll find that Israel is downright humane in comparison.

[sumskilz]

That post is full of so much crap I don't know where to begin.

I had the same thought.

Perhaps give the current Israelis the status of the Amish here in America; allow them their communes and villages and leave them be to themselves.

Perhaps we could politely allow them to be the victims of a real genocide. Anyway, you're living in a world of make-believe. Nuclear-armed nations don't get put on reservations.

But the land is Palestine. Israel might point to an old book about some fairy tale about an old bearded dude leading his people out of an oppressive land under the advice of the mystic sky voice, but even then, the Philistines - from which the name "Palestine" is derived - were there already.

Theodore Herzl, the founder of the Zionist movement, was an atheist, as were most of the major figures in the early movement. The Philistines were people from the Aegean who settled along the coast during the 12th Century BCE, mostly in what is now Gaza. Hebrew, like Phoenician, is a Canaanite language. It developed from the language of the earliest historically known inhabitants of the Levant. All the major Jewish ethnicities are at least half descended from ancient Levantine people. At least half of modern Israeli Jews are descended from Middle-eastern Jews who fled from, or were driven out of, Muslim (mostly Arab) countries in the past few generations. The biblical conquest of Canaan in the book of Joshua isn't historical. I think you got almost every historical point wrong, while at the same time offered a biblical myth as evidence, but really all this history, even the more recent history, is largely irrelevant to the topic of thread if you recognize the current existence of Israel is a reality regardless of how it came to be.

[Kraut and Tea]

It wont work.

End of story.

The entire middle East is nothing but people who hate each other forced to live together.

If I had that magical pen to edraw the borders, I would create new nations based on ethnic and secterian lines.

Rather than creating new failed states.

A Kurdish state, a Shia Arab state, a Druse state, an Assyrian state, a Suni Arab satae, an Alavite state and on and on.

[Dave Strider]

The Palestinians are actually just as much "new arrivals" to the territory as the Jews, in the sense that as recently as a century ago, the Palestinians didn't exist as a people. Under Ottoman rule, they were usually lumped together with the Syrians. Its only when the British conquered the region and passed a border between what would become Israel and Lebanon and Syria that the Palestinians started adopting a national identity distinct from the rest of the Levant. Now that doesn't mean kick them out, but their claim to the land is still no better then our dusty old book (and just between you and me, the Zionist movement was always a lot more nationalist then religious; Israel's the most secular nation in the middle east).

But at least the Palestinians were actually there, as opposed to the majority of the founders of the modern state of Israel, who were basically just shipped over and dropped off. Let me just say, the Jews of Europe did indeed deserve something given to them like that in the aftermath of the Holocaust - yes, indeed, my disliking of Israel isn't rooted in anti-semitism, as so many might be itching to accuse me of at this point - but just arbitrarily giving land to a, as you said, nationalist entity, without regard for the fate of those living there - particularly if those living there share the same ethnic identity, language, and religion as literally every country surrounding the new state - was a bad move, to put it simply. Which is why it would have been better to have some sort of special citizenship arrangement, as opposed to a state which is centered around a religion, even if they are secular in practice.

As for the African Jews, they're only discriminated against in certain Orthodox privately funded institutions (which discriminate anything that isn't the right sect of Orthodox Jewish). Other then that, I've served with African Jews in the military, studied with them at a university, and worked alongside them in the private sector. They're not discriminated against in the slightest. You might be confusing the African Jews with Eritrean and Sudanese illegal immigrants we're trying to kick out, on account of them being illegal immigrants, not because of their skin color.

Well, it's great that in your experiences you haven't seen any, but others would beg to differ.

As for the recent war in Gaza, that's the result of an Islamist terrorist group called Hamas using civilians as human shields; its either allow them free reign to attack Israeli civilians, or take them out alongside their hostages. Just so that bleeding hearts like you that don't understand what fighting a war with a terrorist group means call for Israel to be punished.
If you compare Israel's actions in Gaza to what NATO troops did in Iraq and Afghanistan, you'll find that Israel is downright humane in comparison.

So let me get this straight, if Hamas uses human shields, your strategy is to bomb the shields away?

Also, remember for a second that Hamas only exists because of how Israel has treated the Palestinians. Hamas didn't come into being until 30-odd years after Israel was established. The fact that Hamas has remained popular in Palestine means that Israel obviously isn't doing well in its PR campaign with the Palestinian people...maybe because Israelis are still illegally settling over the border to displace the native Palestinians, bulldozing Palestinian homes on the West Bank every day, publishing Op-Eds like this one, cheer and have picnics and parties when watching their planes bomb civilians, and justifying the deaths of 2,500 Palestinians by saying they were retaliation for the deaths of three Israeli teenagers, who were supposedly killed by Palestinians, even though in the distress call sent by the boys to the Israeli police, the kidnappers were speaking in Hebrew. And even if the teenagers were killed by Palestinians, in whose mind does the lives of three teenagers equate with the lives of 2,500 men, women, and children? What did the recent "war" in Gaza do for Israel, aside from kill a few dozen, perhaps a few hundred, Hamas militants? Was it worth the scorn of the world? Was it worth Hamas having a new rallying cry and a massive recruitment drive?

[Dave Strider]

It wont work.

End of story.

The entire middle East is nothing but people who hate each other forced to live together.

If I had that magical pen to edraw the borders, I would create new nations based on ethnic and secterian lines.

Rather than creating new failed states.

A Kurdish state, a Shia Arab state, a Druse state, an Assyrian state, a Suni Arab satae, an Alavite state and on and on.

Essentially. But people more care about ethnicity than religion over there, from what I've been told. A pan-Arab state (perhaps Nasserite in design, perhaps not) would probably be better than dividing Arabs on basis of religion.

[James the Red]

Assuming a unilateral scenario, the Palestinian state would claim ownership over the entire West Bank and East Jerusalem, where upon Israel says something along the lines of "try to take them, see what happens". Then Israel builds a Great Wall of China lookalike in the West Bank (designed to get as many land and Jews in and Palestinians out), a neo-Berlin Wall in Jerusalem, and the situation stagnates from there. Some population transfer might also take place. At some point Islamists are likely to try and take over Palestine, and whether they succeed or not dictates whether the West Bank turns into a hell hole like Gaza. One way or another, Gaza itself, under Hamas control, won't be part of the arrangement, so we may well end up with an East and West Palestine (which confusingly enough, would involve the West Bank in the East).

Palestinians don't want their state to be just a collection of Bantustans, and Israel doesn't want to end the occupation for security. If Israel won't make any concessions than either there will be a 3rd Intifada, or maybe the international community will force Israel into making concessions. Economic sanctions and banning flights to and from Israels only international airport should do the trick. Europe and South America might be on board with that sort of thing, maybe not the United States though.

Or we could try the Yugoslavian model, and wait for the civil war to start (a civil war with nukes at stake, let me remind you).
The Palestinians would have a majority, but the army would be mostly Jewish. The likely result is a Jewish victory followed by either another Palestinian diaspora and/or ethnic cleansing, then we're back to square one only with even more bad blood; lets try and avoid that, if at all possible, for both side's sake.

That seems like a possible outcome no matter what happens.

[Caligula's_Horse]

So let me get this straight, if Hamas uses human shields, your strategy is to bomb the shields away?

Also, remember for a second that Hamas only exists because of how Israel has treated the Palestinians. Hamas didn't come into being until 30-odd years after Israel was established. The fact that Hamas has remained popular in Palestine means that Israel obviously isn't doing well in its PR campaign with the Palestinian people...maybe because Israelis are still illegally settling over the border to displace the native Palestinians, bulldozing Palestinian homes on the West Bank every day, publishing Op-Eds like this one, cheer and have picnics and parties when watching their planes bomb civilians, and justifying the deaths of 2,500 Palestinians by saying they were retaliation for the deaths of three Israeli teenagers, who were supposedly killed by Palestinians, even though in the distress call sent by the boys to the Israeli police, the kidnappers were speaking in Hebrew. And even if the teenagers were killed by Palestinians, in whose mind does the lives of three teenagers equate with the lives of 2,500 men, women, and children? What did the recent "war" in Gaza do for Israel, aside from kill a few dozen, perhaps a few hundred, Hamas militants? Was it worth the scorn of the world? Was it worth Hamas having a new rallying cry and a massive recruitment drive?

The war wasn't about the Israeli teens. That matter was settled when their bodies were found and everyone even remotely connected to their murder was arrested; the war didn't start for a while after that, when Hamas, and its lesser known friend the Islamic Jihad (similar to Hamas, but Shia, not Sunni) started firing rockets at Israeli cities.
We'd have been perfectly content staying out of Gaza otherwise--would have saved us a lot of bad PR and several billion dollars. Gaza can declare independence tomorrow and we won't much care (the territory is no longer occupied since 2005, and is de-facto independent anyway). Its the shooting at us part we have a hard time accepting.

And as for bombing the human shields anyway, seeing as the alternative is to have them fire at Israeli cities with impunity, its not much of a choice.
In war, you often don't get to choose between good and bad solutions, only bad and worse ones. A clear moral path where no one but "bad guys" has to die only happens in Hollywood movies.

Palestinians don't want their state to be just a collection of Bantustans, and Israel doesn't want to end the occupation for security. If Israel won't make any concessions than either there will be a 3rd Intifada, or maybe the international community will force Israel into making concessions. Economic sanctions and banning flights to and from Israels only international airport should do the trick. Europe and South America might be on board with that sort of thing, maybe not the United States though.

Seeing as we're likely never going to achieve a negotiated solution, the question becomes what comes first, the sanctions, or a Palestinian unilateral maneuver.

Personally I'd much rather be rid of the occupied territories with or without sanctions. They're devoid of any natural resource more valuable then farmland, keeping them occupied costs us more then they'll ever bring in, they cause us untold diplomatic damage, and the locals are quite hostile.
Unfortunately, a combination of a minority of religious nuts that claim the occupied territories are god's gift, and a more rational majority that prefer the territories occupied rather then in Hamas' hands think differently, and they currently outnumber my 'dump the toxic asset' camp.

Maybe I should invest in a concrete manufacturer. A well placed Palestinian unilateral declaration of independence, or even a bad enough Intifada could see the demand for concrete walls skyrocket. We'll call it The Other Great Wall, and use it to strengthen relations with China when the Europeans turn on us...

[James the Red]

China values its trade with Iran and the Arab States and the West more than it does Israel. Israel has an uncertain future and China knows it.

[Slydessertfox]

The relationship between the Palestinians and Israeli's is sort of (I know it's a reach) equivalent to the relationship to Native Americans and the US government historically. In other words, a one state solution can only exist with the complete submission and breaking apart on to virtual reservations of Palestinians. This is basically what is happening now, with most of the good land being appropriated by settlers and the Palestinians in the west bank left with the scraps.