Could any Palestinian group stop a reasonable settlement of the conflict?

[Bovril]

I don't think it's controversial to say that Israel has far more military power than any Palestinian faction, or all of them put together. Consequently, they have some ability to take actions without regard to Palestinian wishes. What I would like to know is, does Israel have the military strength to unilaterally impose a reasonable two state solution on Palestine with no consultation? Could the Palestinians stop this occuring? What I envision is a total withdrawl from areas of the West Bank and Gaza that Israel does not intend to incorporate into itself, and the normalisation of the situation in those it does. Further conflict would be dealt with in the manner of normal international relations, including conventional war if necessary. Would this not be the normal mode of concluding a military victory of the sort Israel has so frequently attained over the Palestinians?

So, if Israel has the will to create a two state solution, and has the power to simply impose it, why not do so?


N.B. I am aware of the naivities in this post. I hope that by presenting the question naively, some of our unstated assumptions may be made explicit.

[Boer]

The problem is that Hamas or some other group may be the power in the new Palestinian State, and they may decide to launch rockets into Israel, which would force Israel to re-invade and we'd be right back where we are. Even if the majority of Palestinians were happy with their new state, I'm sure some problem spot would exist, such as Jerusalem or what ever, that would let hard liners claim their lands were still under occupation. It only takes a few nuts with rockets to mess the whole place up.

[Bovril]

The problem is that Hamas or some other group may be the power in the new Palestinian State, and they may decide to launch rockets into Israel, which would force Israel to re-invade and we'd be right back where we are. Even if the majority of Palestinians were happy with their new state, I'm sure some problem spot would exist, such as Jerusalem or what ever, that would let hard liners claim their lands were still under occupation. It only takes a few nuts with rockets to mess the whole place up.

Whilst I agree that this would undoubtedly be a problem, the same is true of Israel's relationship with Lebanon. Israel's approach to Hezbollah rockets has varied, but I think its safe to say the occupation approach was far more costly and less productive than other approaches taken.

[Draco Borealis]

Don't forget that acording to HAMAS charter entire teritory of Israel is future islamic Palestine not Only Judea, Samaria and Gaza And Hamas is more popular than FATAH in west bank too; uniteral withdrawals from places like Lebanon and Gaza brought only more rockets not peace. The questions is not if Israel can do this but why it shud do this. No other state is pressured to commit a national suicide.

[Bovril]

Don't forget that acording to HAMAS charter entire teritory of Israel is future islamic Palestine not Only Judea, Samaria and Gaza And Hamas is more popular than FATAH in west bank too; uniteral withdrawals from places like Lebanon and Gaza brought only more rockets not peace. The questions is not if Israel can do this but why it shud do this. No other state is pressured to commit a national suicide.

I think most Israelis would like very much to see the end of conflict with Palestinians. The occupation might reduce violence in the short run, but in the long run it ensures that it continues. I think the normalisation of relations between Israel and Palestine is the only way in which violence can be reeduced on both sides. I think that is not a controversial view. The question is how to achieve that normalisation. I think Israel probably could and probably should act unilaterally (but in good faith) on this one, since it seems to be the only viable option for resolving the conflict. When one side defeats another, we do not expect agreement, we simply hope the victor will act in good faith in deciding what the upshot is.

Its worth bearing in mind that about a third of Israeli civilian death from 1993-2005 occured outside the 1953 armistice borders. A much larger proportion of military casualties occured there too. I think it is hard to argue that the occupation is preventing violence in the long term. The withdrawl from Lebanon did not eliminate Israeli casualties, but it greatly reduced them, and also greatly reduced Lebanese casualties.

As for the views of Hamas, if they are what you state (and I think they are in an ideal, but often not a pragmatic sense) then that is rather by the by. My point is that unilateral action by Israel can reduce the level of conflict, and almost certainly reduce support for Hamas. As long as the occupation continues, there no good way of countering propoganda that claims Israel seeks to destroy the Palestinian people and that the only way of solving the situation is violence, regardless of the truth of such claims.


Jankren:
I will neither agree nor disagree with your sentiments. However, let's be practical. Israel is never going to be wiped off the map whether you like it or not. So either Israel continues to dominate the Palestinians, or a two state settlement must be reached. Again, thinking pragmatically, Israel holds all the cards. It has overwhelming military superiority and the support of the world's super power. So any solution that does not require the miracle of genuine compromise is going to have to be imposed mainly by Israel, but also with whichever Palestinians will cooperate with them.

From a strategic point of view, surely those of us who want to see an end to the conflict should be pragmatic and say to Israel: "The ball is in your court. You say you wish to see a fair two state solution. Make it so. Do not wait for cooperation that will never come."

[jankren]

"The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized .... Jerusalem was and will for ever be Palestinian capital. Palestine will be restored to the Palestinians. All of it. And for Ever!"

[dragonsign]

Israel has the military power to grab the last remaining self governd zones of palestine, so it should in theory be able to impose a two state solution on the palestinians. The first problem is that Israel(the political leadership) does not want a two state solution, they want to keep the palestinians locked up. They have shown time and time again that they dont hold their part of any final peace deal with the palestinans. Fatah and Hamas has engaged in talks about a joint governemnt over Gaza and the West Bank, and not all fractions of Hamas wants to wipe Israel out. Several Highranking Hamas official has said that they are willing to negotiate with Israel.

Another problem is if the israelis desides to put up a two state solution on their own, whey will, naturaly, not reconice any political body on the Palestinan side. Therefore there wont be any political unit able to quikly establish a effective government in the Palestine.

[Bovril]

Your first point is the expected outcome of this thread's deliberation, but I'll leave it to one side. As regards your second point, international peace keepers have often been employed in comparible situations. The UN, EU, NATO or Arab League could supervise a force.

[Sphere]

There are some serious problems with this solution

To create a workable border, hundreds of thousands of Isreals will have to be relocated, many forcefully. The pullout of Gaza and the destruction of its settlements was very divisive in Isreal, the West Bank would be orders of magnitude more difficult, especially without some promise of "land-for-peace".

Second is what to do with the several million palestinians living as refugee's in the neighboring Arab states. What right of return/compensation will they be granted? Money, Land, Isreali Citizenship?

And there is always the fundemental problem that Isreal controls and provides all water and electricity to the palestinian territories, which would continually undermine any sort of independence.

Then there's Jerusalem....you get the point

[Bovril]

Whilst those are all good points, I'd still contend that if there solutions to them, and we all must hope that there are, the only people who can decide on and implement them are the Israeli government. And its only going to happen if they act unilaterally. But the political will may well not exist. So we reach the unpleasant conclusion that Israel does not want a two state solution, because the political discourse in Israel is too divided over what that would mean. Which is not to say the large majority of Israelis, including politicians, do not want their own version of a two state solution, but it does mean that Israel is paralized by its own internal disputes. The same can, of course, be said of Palestine, but their relitive lack of power makes this a less disasterous issue.

[Icefrisco]

I don't think it's controversial to say that Israel has far more military power than any Palestinian faction, or all of them put together. Consequently, they have some ability to take actions without regard to Palestinian wishes. What I would like to know is, does Israel have the military strength to unilaterally impose a reasonable two state solution on Palestine with no consultation? Could the Palestinians stop this occuring? What I envision is a total withdrawl from areas of the West Bank and Gaza that Israel does not intend to incorporate into itself, and the normalisation of the situation in those it does. Further conflict would be dealt with in the manner of normal international relations, including conventional war if necessary. Would this not be the normal mode of concluding a military victory of the sort Israel has so frequently attained over the Palestinians?

So, if Israel has the will to create a two state solution, and has the power to simply impose it, why not do so?


N.B. I am aware of the naivities in this post. I hope that by presenting the question naively, some of our unstated assumptions may be made explicit.

The two-state solution sounds like a very attractive resolution to the conflict but it would only cause more hostilities. Two-state solutions never work. Korea, India, Germany, Ireland, and Vietnam all failed. There is nothing to indicate that dividing Israel and Palestine would work. Dividing the countries would cause both sides to claim territory of the other. Most likely, Israel would claim ownership of Jewish areas of the West Bank and Palestine would claim ownership of Jerusalem. In addition, both sides would claim the other is persecuting minorities. This would be especially true in the West Bank where Arabs and settlers are constantly fighting each other.

A one-state solution would probably work best. Since both groups are reasonably large, they would be forced to accomodate each other. This works very well in Canada and Belgium even though there are occassional crises. As long as Israelis are willing to live in a non-majority Jewish state and Palestinians are willing to live in a non-theocratic state a one state solution could work out. At this point many Palestinians and Israelis are so tired of attempts at a two-state solution that they would be willing to live in a single state.

[1000 Year Reich]

Whilst they do have the military might to create a two state solution, they do not currently have the political will as their newly elected right wing Prime minister has stated many times that he doesn't want a two state policy.
Back to the military side of things, if they were to militarily impose a two state solution of their own design, I have a feeling that it would not go down too well with the Palestinians (Leaders and Citizens alike).

Icefrisco makes a valid point that a single state solution could be the way to go. It would however take massive concessions on behalf of all groups involved and honestly I can't see that happening, at least not in my lifetime and I have considerable life left (I hope).

[Phier]

I think that no matter what concessions Israel brings and gives, or force it uses, there will always be enough of a radical fringe, paid for by its neighbors, that Israel will never see peace through anything besides decisive military victory.

[1000 Year Reich]

I think you're right in the sence of a radical fringe. Both sides have them, the only difference is that one is paid for by the US and the other by Arab Governments. I don't think even decisive military action can fix the region, if anything more militarism would only make it worse and bring more people who have lost family members friend etc into the conflict.

If a desicive miitary victory was accomplished by say Israel, it would only have the effect of marginalising even more Palestinians leading to countless more years of conflict in the region.

Peace will only come when both sides marginalise their own radical elements themselves (I think this makes sense lol), denying them the opportunity to prosper and destabalise rational thought.

[Phier]

I keep hearing about the radical elements in Israel.

Which would those be? The Palestinian radicals are easy enough to follow.

I fail to see how Israel gains by continued conflict.

[1000 Year Reich]

I am not talking about radicals in the Palestinian sense who conduct suicide bombings and the like. Israel has political radicalists who support right wing policies such as building settlements in illegally occupied territory and building concrete walls through towns to separate people like cattle. They in my mind are just as dangerous as these policies hinder the peace process.

I think it needs to be said that Israelis' are not the only people that want peace here. There are just as many Palestinians who desire to live without violence and oppression.

Check out this article on radical activity in Israel. Its not a bad read and shows that both sides have radical elements.

http://www.geocities.com/alabasters_....html#contents

[b_133]

I am not talking about radicals in the Palestinian sense who conduct suicide bombings and the like. Israel has political radicalists who support right wing policies such as building settlements in illegally occupied territory and building concrete walls through towns to separate people like cattle. They in my mind are just as dangerous as these policies hinder the peace process.

I think it needs to be said that Israelis' are not the only people that want peace here. There are just as many Palestinians who desire to live without violence and oppression.

Check out this article on radical activity in Israel. Its not a bad read and shows that both sides have radical elements.

http://www.geocities.com/alabasters_....html#contents

The difference of course is the fact that those radicals currently control the Palestinian government (In Gaza at least, if we consider the Fatah moderate which is another story) while the radical right wingers in Israel (that exist in every country. I don't see how you hold it against Israel) barely hold any power.
Kahane's party and it's friends were banned from running to the Knesset and extreme-right parties in Israel barely get any seats in elections (The far-right party in Israel that gets any seats currently is National Union which got 4 seats in the last election, Arab anti-Zionist parties currently have more seats in the Knesset).

So which radicals are you talking about? Lieberman and his party who are very far from being radicals and are victims of poor media coverage? Religious groups that really don't care much for anything other than their own crowds of voters (Orthodox Jews, Arabs etc)?
There aren't many radicals in the Knesset let alone radicals who hold any power in the government, unless you consider every Israeli right-winger an 'ultranationalist radical' which is so common on these boards.

Moving on,

I don't think it's controversial to say that Israel has far more military power than any Palestinian faction, or all of them put together. Consequently, they have some ability to take actions without regard to Palestinian wishes. What I would like to know is, does Israel have the military strength to unilaterally impose a reasonable two state solution on Palestine with no consultation? Could the Palestinians stop this occuring? What I envision is a total withdrawl from areas of the West Bank and Gaza that Israel does not intend to incorporate into itself, and the normalisation of the situation in those it does. Further conflict would be dealt with in the manner of normal international relations, including conventional war if necessary. Would this not be the normal mode of concluding a military victory of the sort Israel has so frequently attained over the Palestinians?

So, if Israel has the will to create a two state solution, and has the power to simply impose it, why not do so?


N.B. I am aware of the naivities in this post. I hope that by presenting the question naively, some of our unstated assumptions may be made explicit.

The question that should be asked is not whether Israel has the power to impose a 2 state solution or not but why would Israel impose a 2 state solution right now.
Your solution only serves the Palestinian interest and is only extremely short-sighted.
Israel provides electricity, gas, water etc to Palestinian territories - there is no independence as long as this situation persists.

Moving on, how do you make sure there isn't a violent coup by groups like Hamas or the Islamic Jihad (that are not willing to accept any 2 state solution and are out for every single inch of Israel) the moment Israel unlitarely withdraws from the West Bank exactly like what happened in Gaza?

Even if there isn't an actual take-over, these groups will not simply disappear one morning, agreed?
They will operate from within a Palestinian state while still holding some serious political power, the situation will be exactly the same as Hezbollah and Lebanon today, and, just like in Hezbollah's case today, since Palestine would be a sovereign state Israel will not have any grounds to impose an arms blockade which would mean groups like Hamas would re-arm and strengthen un-interrupted.
There will be no conventional war - a guerilla group operating from within another sovereign state is not an act of war and Hamas will continue to use the same tactics that intentionally endanger Palestinians un-interrupted.

Even then, the PA would undoubtly continue to advocate anti-semitism, claims to all of Israel in it's school curriculums and what would happen then? Newer generations will grow up and initiate more wars. You gotta supervise the education and rewriting of history that goes on there.

Tell me then, how do you solve all these issues? Do you realize why your solution is going to fall on it's ass immidiately after it's carried out?

This is all of course even assuming (very naively) that the PA would consider the conflict done without the Right of Return carried out which Israel can't (and never should) do.

In the end of the day this isn't really going to be solved until the PA makes some concessions of it's own like giving up the idea of an actual Right of Return or sovereignity over every inch of East Jerusalem (Including holy Jewish sites and predominantly Jewish areas and neighborhoods which never inhabited Palestinians to begin with).
The Arab world also has to stop using Palestinians as pawns, give Palestinians living in it's borders citizenship and resettle them, UNRWA has to be dismissed and put an end to the Special treatment Palestinians get.
The Arab world and UNRWA intentionally causes the refugee issue to persist.
Egypt and Jordan have to do their own parts as well and together with Israel help Palestinians build their own infrastracture so they can supply water, electricity etc to their own people. They can't keep watching from the side as if they have nothing to do with these territories.

This widely-accepted idea in the world of Israel and Israel alone making concessions is the reason talks continue to fail.