A solution to the Palestine problem?

[Treize]

Ok so first of all an over simplified summary of my opinion on the matter itself:

Jews have been a minority in Palestine for a long time. No problem here ofcourse. Then large numbers of Jewish immigrants came to Palestine. By 1947 the formed about 1/3 of the population. The UN wanted to give 1/3 of the people, mainly immigrants, 55% of the land including lots of fertile land (and also the Negev). The Palestinians did not agree, tried to resist, they failed and today's problem was created.

Agree or not, but that is not the topic of this thread.

I believe that the Palestinians are pretty much screwed over. They lived in Palestine for centuries and there lands were taken over by (mainly) foreign immigrants.

I believe that a possible solution should be fair towards the Palestinians but that pretty much limits the options...

The ideal solution would mean that the Palestinians would have their land back and that the Israeli's could stay where they are and continue their life pretty much as it is now.

So that would mean a single state. Idealistic I know. This would be very very difficult to accomplish and both sides would not like it very much but it is the only fair solution I believe.

But how would this be possible in reality?

Some things that would be needed:
-A totally secular state, not Islamic and not Jewish. So no religious flag or coat of arms and a secular constitution.
-Lots of peacekeepers.

A similar solution should be used to solve the Cyprus issue.

[Dubh the dark]

How would you cater for voting patterns in a single state. Would dispersal countrywide of both groups create equal partnership in government? I see you are offering some kind of a solution which I appreciate, but a one state solution might be too idyllic.

[Treize]

Yes I agree. But I cannot find a solution that would be fair. Even the UN plan would be (very) unfair.

The ideal solution would be a totally secular state with a normal democratic government and liberal laws. But if there is no other way a sort of Libanon type state could be created (for transition).

[Dubh the dark]

Yes I agree. But I cannot find a solution that would be fair. Even the UN plan would be (very) unfair.

The ideal solution would be a totally secular state with a normal democratic government and liberal laws. But if there is no other way a sort of Libanon type state could be created (for transition).

Issues would arise over the willingness of political parties on both sides to work together in such a state. Not to mention the fact that Israel doesn't recognise Hamas. Maybe a two-state solution could be easier to implement, otherwise one side could dominate the other in a single state.

[Yosemite]

give all the lands to belgium

[Treize]

give all the lands to belgium

Or this ofcourse.

[iRaQi]

totally secular state

like Iraq ^_*

[Treize]

Issues would arise over the willingness of political parties on both sides to work together in such a state. Not to mention the fact that Israel doesn't recognise Hamas. Maybe a two-state solution could be easier to implement, otherwise one side could dominate the other in a single state.

True. There are a number of solutions though. One would be just to ban all religious parties, a Lebanon like contruction (but that would most likely fail) or a very slow transition under UN governance. Hamas should be allowed because it is a terrorist organisation and because they are full blown Islamists.

A two-state solution would be unfair in my eyes. It is very unfair towards the Palestinians.

like Iraq ^_*

Just no.

[Dubh the dark]

I see what you're saying but I just think the hatred is too much on both sides. I mean even to get both sides in the same room is a mammoth task;

Arab foreign ministers are giving the United States one month to convince Israel to renew a freeze on settlement construction. The move keeps Israeli-Palestinian peace talks from collapsing just a month after they were relaunched.

Arab League members have backed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in calling on Israel to stop building in the occupied West Bank before direct negotiations can resume.

After a League committee meeting Friday in Sirte, Libya, the group said it will meet again in one month to study alternative proposals by Mr. Abbas and decide their next course of action.

Arab diplomats say among the ideas being considered would be to appeal to the United Nations for more direct action.

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/...104603249.html

[Orko]

A two-state solution would be unfair in my eyes. It is very unfair towards the Palestinians.

Too bad, buddy, 'cause that is what most of them want. Not a single binational state.

[Treize]

But the current developments are the cause of this. The PA is limited to the (small) West Bank (Hamas controls gaza) and a large portion is filled with Israeli settlements. They have all the reasons to hate Israel's guts. If both sides and especially Israel would change their policy the relations could improve.

Ofcourse, very idealistic but I can't think of a better solution.

[eran]

But the current developments are the cause of this. The PA is limited to the (small) West Bank (Hamas controls gaza) and a large portion is filled with Israeli settlements. They have all the reasons to hate Israel's guts. If both sides and especially Israel would change their policy the relations could improve.

Ofcourse, very idealistic but I can't think of a better solution.

It's not that small,
the West Bank is at the size of Israel without the useless desert.

[Jom]

Moved to the Political Academy.

[Koelkastmagneet]

Most likely not going to work, I really don't think either side is very much in favor of this and do we really want a second Belgium?

[Treize]

Most likely not going to work, I really don't think either side is very much in favor of this and do we really want a second Belgium?

A federation would be bad in this case I believe. A centralised state would be better I THINK.

Too bad, buddy, 'cause that is what most of them want. Not a single binational state.

Then the foreign immigrants will prevail, and that would be unacceptable.

[Koelkastmagneet]

A federation would be bad in this case I believe. A centralised state would be better I THINK.

Ok, so a second Yugoslavia instead of a second Belgium.

There's still the gigantic problem of two groups of people both about 6 million big that have had quite a conflicted history living together in the same country.

[Orko]

Then the foreign immigrants will prevail, and that would be unacceptable.

What do you suddenly have against immigrants? Is it just you being anti-Israeli?
Also, this completely doesn't answer my question.

[b_133]

Jews have been a minority in Palestine for a long time. No problem here ofcourse. Then large numbers of Jewish immigrants came to Palestine. By 1947 the formed about 1/3 of the population. The UN wanted to give 1/3 of the people, mainly immigrants, 55% of the land including lots of fertile land (and also the Negev). The Palestinians did not agree, tried to resist, they failed and today's problem was created.

Agree or not, but that is not the topic of this thread.

Disagree.

I believe that the Palestinians are pretty much screwed over. They lived in Palestine for centuries and there lands were taken over by (mainly) foreign immigrants.

What constitutes it being 'their land' exactly? They didn't have any sovereign rights on it, there was no Palestinian state. They certainly didn't own most of the land that was given to the Jews in the partition plan as in their property, if that's what you're getting at. British records show by far most of it was state owned and actually belonged to neither Jews nor Arabs.
Fact is, you can't just show up somewhere and declare 'This is my land now'. Jews can't do it, neither can Palestinians.

I believe that a possible solution should be fair towards the Palestinians but that pretty much limits the options...

The ideal solution would mean that the Palestinians would have their land back and that the Israeli's could stay where they are and continue their life pretty much as it is now.

So that would mean a single state. Idealistic I know. This would be very very difficult to accomplish and both sides would not like it very much but it is the only fair solution I believe.

But how would this be possible in reality?

Some things that would be needed:
-A totally secular state, not Islamic and not Jewish. So no religious flag or coat of arms and a secular constitution.
-Lots of peacekeepers.

A similar solution should be used to solve the Cyprus issue.

There is no way that a single state solution would ever work. Where exactly do groups like Hamas fit in with your plans? They don't plan on settling for anything less than an Islamic republic in Palestine. At least not for the long term. There would be so much resistance and opposition to this idea from both sides that it would forever be a terror-struck nation. Where does the IDF for example fit in? Do you give Palestinians control over Israel's nuclear stock? There are just so many problems here that it's not worth speculating how to make it work, it just won't, both people want their own country and rightly so, both people have claims to the land and a right to be there regardless of what you'd have us believe. Two state solution is the only way to go.

Life isn't ing fair. Many, many nations, races and people in the world have been ed over yet they prosper today, and some actually don't (Native americans?). Move on, deal with it, and stop clinging on to unrealistic hopes of reviving some glories of the past. Deal with the here and now, over a million Jews were kicked out of their homes all around the Middle East, do you see Israel demanding a 'Right of return'? Hell, Israel isn't even demanding compensation for all the property that was lost. Why? Because it's completely damn deluded and unrealistic and will hinder any peace talks that might ever exist between Israel and it's neighbors. It's perhaps the lack of consistent whining from Israel about this issue that has seen it so neglected to the level that so many people don't even know there was a Jewish exodus of similar proportions to the Palestinian one. Because Israel deals with the cards it has.

[Treize]

What constitutes it being 'their land' exactly? They didn't have any sovereign rights on it, there was no Palestinian state. They certainly didn't own most of the land that was given to the Jews in the partition plan as in their property, if that's what you're getting at. British records show by far most of it was state owned and actually belonged to neither Jews nor Arabs.
Fact is, you can't just show up somewhere and declare 'This is my land now'. Jews can't do it, neither can Palestinians.

Because they lived their for centuries. That makes it 'their' land.

There is no way that a single state solution would ever work. Where exactly do groups like Hamas fit in with your plans? They don't plan on settling for anything less than an Islamic republic in Palestine. At least not for the long term. There would be so much resistance and opposition to this idea from both sides that it would forever be a terror-struck nation. Where does the IDF for example fit in? Do you give Palestinians control over Israel's nuclear stock? There are just so many problems here that it's not worth speculating how to make it work, it just won't, both people want their own country and rightly so, both people have claims to the land and a right to be there regardless of what you'd have us believe. Two state solution is the only way to go.

Hamas would not be tollerated ofcourse. The IDF would be reformed and renamed ofcourse and prehaps slashed down.

But what would be a 'fair' two state solution. I don't believe that giving the Palestinians gaza and the west-bank is fair, not at all.

[b_133]

See my edited last paragraph about the whole 'It's unfair' mentality.

And no, i'm sorry, but living there for centuries (I like how you don't mention the fact that many of the current Palestinians were immigrants themselves from nearby lands, coming to Palestine for work opportunities when the British showed up in the early 20th century) does not make it 'your land'. If you didn't buy it, it's not yours personally. And if you're not a citizen of a state that has sovereignity over it, it's not yours in the collective 'people' sense either. By that logic i can simply put up a tent in your back yard and declare it my land simply because you don't object to me being there. There are legal bindings at work here, legally, it is not their land nor was there ever a Palestinian state recognized by the UN.

What it means is that they have claims to the land and a arguably a history there, so a two-state solution should be set. I support a Palestinian state with Gaza strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem in it. Asking for more like a right of return to some long-gone home that your great-grandfather used to live in because you have some giant ass golden key to it is deluded, doubly so when you got no legal backing at all. Jews with proper legal backing and documents showing their family owned X and Y land in Germany prior to WW2 are given compensation fees and stuff like that, actually asking to go back and live there when someone else is there is ridiculous in the extreme.

There is no fair in life, on grand-scale politics like that there is only pragmatism and what is actually practical and possible to do. Palestinians are no different to so many other people of various nationalities who have had historical grievenances and have simply moved on with it.