Change the name of Israel

[Forty Two]

Can anyone realistically say that there is even a slender chance of a political solution to the Israeli/Palestinian stalemate?

There is a technical chance, but I would have to say that the chance is not even "slender."

The way to get this done is for the Palestinians to do what they should have done in 1947-48 - agree to partition, and get a recognized nation - pledge to accept Israel's right to exist and to stop attacking Israel. Agree to current borders. The longer they delay, the less chance they have of anything. They will not get their wish that Israel be destroyed, but they will get a country.

The reason being is that two-state solution is the one that gets like 80% of the world or more on board. The problem is that whenever two-state solutions are tried, the Palestinians won't accept it. The Palestinians have been offered statehood on three different occasions in the past century. In all three instances, Israel supported the plan while the Palestinians viciously opposed it and instead resorted to terrorism.

In 1937, the Peel Commission and British Mandatory Government recommended an independent Jewish state, in areas where Jews were a majority, would be created alongside an Arab state, in areas where Arabs were a majority. The Arab state would have been significantly larger than the Jewish state, and both people would have been given the fundamental right of self-determination. However, the Arabs rejected the plan, and continued their fight to, as the Grand Mufti said, “drive the Jews into the sea.”

In 1947, the UN Partitioned. Jews accepted. Muslims rejected. Again. The split was between Jewish majority areas, and Muslim majority areas.

In 2000, at the Middle East Peace Summit moderated by President Bill Clinton, Israel offered nearly everything the Muslims wanted, an independent state in the West Bank and Gaza, compensation and right of return for refugees, and control over much of Jerusalem. Palestinians again rejected.

[Forty Two]

nice strawman, but the inner politics of neighbouring countries are uttlery irrelevanant to the matter at hand.

Why would the inner politics of Israel be relevant, but the inner politics of neighboring countries not be relevant?

[Animavore]

nice strawman, but the inner politics of neighbouring countries are uttlery irrelevanant to the matter at hand.

A red herring is when someone talks about something else which has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[Hermit]

Can anyone realistically say that there is even a slender chance of a political solution to the Israeli/Palestinian stalemate?

Huh? What with Bibi having been elected for a fifth consecutive term after promising to annex more Palestinian land? And after the passing of the basic law (basic law being the Israeli version of a constitution) which made it clear that Israel is a nation for Jews rather than a nation of Israeli citizen?

We agree that Israel is a nation for Jews, and that shouldn't be. However, when Syria, Jordan, Egypt, etc. are all nations for Muslims rather than nations for citizens. Isn't it as much their fault as Israel's?

Surprise, surprise. More whataboutism. Will you ever learn that it doesn't work?

[Forty Two]

However, the Jewish protectionist policies of Israel are no more irrelevant than the Muslim protectionist policies of the Palestinian Authority, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, etc. Those are the countries that previously sought to derive the Jews into the sea. The relevance is that the Jews need a Jewish nation to survive, because the Muslim nations are not secular and are -- due to the pernicious influence of Islam -- looking to turn Israel into a Muslim nation too. They aren't looking for a secular nation built on pluralism and religious liberty.

[Hermit]

I wish I could, but so long as Israel's politics will be dominated by the far right and religious parties, I don't see any such things happening.

Do the neighboring countries' politics and domination by religious parties enter into it somehow? Or are they dominated by nicey-nice lefties and secular parties?

"What about...?"

[Forty Two]

Can anyone realistically say that there is even a slender chance of a political solution to the Israeli/Palestinian stalemate?

Huh? What with Bibi having been elected for a fifth consecutive term after promising to annex more Palestinian land? And after the passing of the basic law (basic law being the Israeli version of a constitution) which made it clear that Israel is a nation for Jews rather than a nation of Israeli citizen?

We agree that Israel is a nation for Jews, and that shouldn't be. However, when Syria, Jordan, Egypt, etc. are all nations for Muslims rather than nations for citizens. Isn't it as much their fault as Israel's?

Surprise, surprise. More whataboutism. Will you ever learn that it doesn't work?

It's not whattaboutism, because I'm simply saying that resolution of the matter requires, as a practical matter, that all countries in the region (or at least most) go secular. Otherwise it's suicide for Israel.

The reason Israel has to protect its Jewishness is because of the Muslim nations and territories that surround it. The Muslim forces want to turn Israel into another Muslim state.

[Hermit]

In 1937, the Peel Commission and British Mandatory Government recommended an independent Jewish state, in areas where Jews were a majority, would be created alongside an Arab state, in areas where Arabs were a majority.

How could that have possibly worked? By 1939 30% of the British Palestinian Mandate was Jewish, and they occupied 12% of the land at that time. The map seems broadly in agreement, even though it displays the areas of Jewish owned lands had grown to ten years after the proposal was made..



The fact that it would have been impossible to create "an independent Jewish state, in areas where Jews were a majority" out of that mottled lot of spots makes it pretty obvious that the Peel Commission's proposal lacked even a mere appearance of honesty.

[Hermit]

Can anyone realistically say that there is even a slender chance of a political solution to the Israeli/Palestinian stalemate?

Huh? What with Bibi having been elected for a fifth consecutive term after promising to annex more Palestinian land? And after the passing of the basic law (basic law being the Israeli version of a constitution) which made it clear that Israel is a nation for Jews rather than a nation of Israeli citizen?

We agree that Israel is a nation for Jews, and that shouldn't be. However, when Syria, Jordan, Egypt, etc. are all nations for Muslims rather than nations for citizens. Isn't it as much their fault as Israel's?

Surprise, surprise. More whataboutism. Will you ever learn that it doesn't work?

It's not whattaboutism, because I'm simply saying that resolution of the matter requires, as a practical matter, that all countries in the region (or at least most) go secular. Otherwise it's suicide for Israel.

The reason Israel has to protect its Jewishness is because of the Muslim nations and territories that surround it. The Muslim forces want to turn Israel into another Muslim state.

This is where the snake bites its tail, isn't it? Jews settle among Palestinians and push them out. Then they create the nation of Israel and wonder why the Palestinians object.

I used to be on Israel's side for the simple reason that they were a comparatively democratic and secular nation surrounded by Islamic theocracies and dictatorships. Because of that I ignored the fact that they basically reconquered the land of milk and honey promised by their god about 1900 years after the Roman turfed them out. Since the enactment of the basic law as Israel as a nation of Jews rather than a nation of Israel's citizens in June last year I could no longer maintain that stance. Now that Netanyahu has announced that he will continue the process of annexing Palestinian territory if he gets re-elected - and he did get re-elected - the moral situation of Israel as a nation is even less tenable.

[Forty Two]

This is where the snake bites its tail, isn't it? Jews settle among Palestinians and push them out.

We have a foundational difference here - Jews were there for centuries - not just "settled among." I mean, at one time Muslims "settled among" Christians and Jews in the Levant (8th century on...) and "pushed people out," didn't they?

However, since centuries BC Jews were in the Levant, and elsewhere in the middle east, and so were Christians.

Also, do you have an issue with immigration here? For those that did immigrate, is your position different for Jewish immigration to the Levant than for other migrants around the world?

Then they create the nation of Israel and wonder why the Palestinians object.

Same reason why a nation of Jordan would be objected to, right? Jews and Christians lived in Jordan, too. Why should it be a Muslim country? Don't the same objections apply?

I used to be on Israel's side for the simple reason that they were a comparatively democratic and secular nation surrounded by Islamic theocracies and dictatorships. Because of that I ignored the fact that they basically reconquered the land of milk and honey promised by their god about 1900 years after the Roman turfed them out. Since the enactment of the basic law as Israel as a nation of Jews rather than a nation of Israel's citizens in June last year I could no longer maintain that stance. Now that Netanyahu has announced that he will continue the process of annexing Palestinian territory if he gets re-elected - and he did get re-elected - the moral situation of Israel as a nation is even less tenable.

The Romans didn't turf them out. They ruled them, yes. But the Jews were there.

By not agreeing to a State, the Palestinians guarantee their own defeat on this issue. They want the whole pie, so they won't take half. They aren't getting Israel - it will not become a Muslim State. That ship has long, long sailed. Their options are two-state solution, or nothing, because eventually, another 50 and 100 years will go by. Demographics will change, and memories will fade. On that you are right. However, nothing changes the fact that Israel will never be a Muslim country, except if there is a massive massacre and expulsion of millions of Jews. That will not happen, or if it does neither the Palestinians nor the other Muslim countries surrounding it will enjoy the repercussions for doing so....

[Strontium Dog]

My view is that the moral and ethical failings of one party, or even the crimes thereof, are not mitigated, offset, or downgraded by the failings or crimes of another. It matters not one jot who has killed more Palestinians, the point is that those who have done so carry sole responsibility for their acts. As I said, you're portraying having a low opinion of Israel, and in Svarty's case a particularly low opinion, as an act of racial and/or religious hatred - perhaps even one bordering on an act of violence.

That's not really my point. My point is that if stuff done by one group of people exercises you more than the exact same stuff (or worse) done by all other groups of people, then that is a double standard. If the people you're applying a double standard too just happen to belong to a specific race of people... well, conclusions can be drawn.

[Jason]

My view is that the moral and ethical failings of one party, or even the crimes thereof, are not mitigated, offset, or downgraded by the failings or crimes of another. It matters not one jot who has killed more Palestinians, the point is that those who have done so carry sole responsibility for their acts. As I said, you're portraying having a low opinion of Israel, and in Svarty's case a particularly low opinion, as an act of racial and/or religious hatred - perhaps even one bordering on an act of violence.

That's not really my point. My point is that if stuff done by one group of people exercises you more than the exact same stuff (or worse) done by all other groups of people, then that is a double standard. If the people you're applying a double standard too just happen to belong to a specific race of people... well, conclusions can be drawn.

What a load of shit. The exact opposite could equally be true. For example if stuff done by your kids bothers you more than the exact same stuff done by other people's kids then that's just because you have more concern for your own kids than others. That's normal.

Israel is an ally of the western nations, has been for a long time, they're part of our group. So things they do that are wrong reasonably bother us more than similar things done by those who are not part of our group.

What a pathetic ploy to cast criticism in a negative light.

[Strontium Dog]

What a load of shit. The exact opposite could equally be true. For example if stuff done by your kids bothers you more than the exact same stuff done by other people's kids then that's just because you have more concern for your own kids than others. That's normal.

Israel is an ally of the western nations, has been for a long time, they're part of our group. So things they do that are wrong reasonably bother us more than similar things done by those who are not part of our group.

What a pathetic ploy to cast criticism in a negative light.

This is a pretty poor attempt at justification of a double standard.

Why Is Israel part of our "group" (whatever that is), but Arab allies, like Saudi Arabia, who have been allied to the West for longer than modern Israel has even existed, not part of that group?

[Jason]

Many reasons, both historical and cultural. Israel and the west maintain a "special relationship" based on shared beliefs, Western values, and a combination of historical perspectives.

[Hermit]

The Romans didn't turf them out. They ruled them, yes. But the Jews were there.

Whom are you trying to kid? The Jewish nation of Judea had for all intents and purposes been wiped out by the Romans, who then "systematically drove the Jews from Palestine. After 73 AD, Hebrew history would only be the history of the Diaspora as the Jews and their world view spread over Africa, Asia, and Europe."

The revolts against the Romans did lead to yet another diaspora, the dispersion of the Jews beyond Israel.. The Jews themselves refer to it as such. Those who were not killed in battle, by hunger or genocide were sold into slavery and or paraded as the vanquished in Rome. Jerusalem, and its temple were totally destroyed. The relatively few remaining Jews were not allowed in the area of the former city, except for one day of the year, during which they were to "celebrate" their defeat.

As recently as 1517 the Jewish population in Palestine had still not recovered from that disaster. It amounted to 5000 heads, and this figure did not grow to 60,000 until 1918. The corresponding figures for Non-Jews were 295,000 and 600,000 respectively. (Linkiepooh). Though I could not find a breakdown for the non-Jewish population, it's probably safe to say that most of those people were Muslim-Palestinians.


Now I need to repeat this again, for you insist on ignoring it - by 1939 30% of the British Palestinian Mandate was Jewish, and they occupied 12% of the land at that time.



The map seems broadly in agreement, even though it displays the areas of Jewish owned lands had grown to ten years after the proposal was made... How on earth would you justify making a nation out of it?

By not agreeing to a State, the Palestinians guarantee their own defeat on this issue.

WTF? Theodor Herzl, the most prominent founding figure of Zionism, made this prediction in 1896: "important experiments in colonization have been made, though on the mistaken principle of a gradual infiltration of Jews. An infiltration is bound to end badly. It continues till the inevitable moment when the native population feels itself threatened, and forces the government to stop a further influx of Jews. Immigration is consequently futile unless we have the sovereign right to continue such immigration." In other words, he saw the necessity of gaining the official approval for the Jewish takeover of Palestine lands by an acknowledged political entity, which was the Ottoman Empire at the time. That empire fell, of course, before the takeover could be initiated, but eventually the United Nations organisation obliged.

It's not as though Jews were ever interested in equitable participation by the majority Muslim-Palestinian population. Paramilitary organisations, such as Haganah, Irgun and Lehi were formed in 1920, 1931 and 1940 respectively. Ostensibly tasked with defending the new Jewish settlements that sprang up in the post-WWI era, they were in fact terrorist organisations. Yes, they did defend Jewish settlements, old and new, but they became better known for driving Palestinians out of theirs to make way for more Jewish settlements. Most of its members were merged into the Israeli army after the establishment of the Israeli nation. Little wonder that Palestinians regard the Israeli Defence Force as thinly disguised terrorists today and treat them as such whenever they can.

Also, do you have an issue with immigration here?

"Here"? You really do have a weird concept of immigration.