Is it Possible for Israel and Palestine to Peacefully Coexist?

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Jews were invited to Palestine by the Palestinians in 1920, when they sent envoys to the International Jewish Congress in Carlsbad in 1920.

The "fixed" border of Palestine was established by the Treaty of San Remo and Treaty of Sevres, in 1920
Palestine was owed and promised its independence for helping Lawrence of Arabia in WWI.
All countries involved in WWI agreed to the borders of Palestine.
But there were no significant number of Jews there yet in 1920.

Who were the envoys? Did they fly in Palestinian aircraft? What were their names?

The "fixed" border of Palestine was established by the Treaty of San Remo and Treaty of Sevres, in 1920

Who did they fix borders with? Who were the Palestinian signatories?

Palestine was owed and promised its independence for helping Lawrence of Arabia in WWI.

Promised? That sounds very legal and official.
How many Palestinian troops fought with Lawrence? A dozen?
What happened after the Palestinians were given Jordan?

 

[Shusha]

The UN made a division in 1948.
The problem was in 1967, Israel violated the UN partition and invaded the West Bank and Jerusalem.
It is Israel that is entirely at fault.

Wow. Why did you skip over the part about Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq violating the UN partition in 1948?! That is a clear violation of international law. And yet you what .... forgot about it? Dismiss it? Have different international law for Jews?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Lots of criminals have not yet been tried and punished for their crimes.
It does not make them less criminal.

I know, Arafat died of AIDS before he could be punished for all of his crimes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wrong.
What you forget is that Jews have rights in Palestine, but Arab natives are constantly abused and have their homes stolen in land controlled by Israel.
So Israel cannot be allowed to ever be in control.
They are criminal and have consistently murdered and stolen homes of the native land owners.

That's a shame. Poor Arabs. They should move somewhere safer. Like Syria or Saudi Arabia.

 

[Shusha]

The borders of Israel did not exist until the UN partition of 1948, and they never included any of the West Bank or Jerusalem.

This is incorrect. Commonly understood, and misused by those who know better, but still incorrect. The Jewish people were the people granted - by right - to reconstitute their nation - sovereignty in the Mandate for Palestine. At the moment of their declaration of independence, they inherited the territory with the boundaries of the previous administration. This is a universally applied law whenever new states come into being (uti posseditis juris).

The UN partition plan was a UNGA resolution which was never enacted and never came into force. Again, commonly argued, but incorrect and would also mean that any discussion of 1967 would be irrelevant. There were no other governments and no agreements which created another state in 1948. It all transferred to Israel.

 

[Shusha]

The land was legally made sovereign as Palestine by the Treaty of San Remo and the Treaty of Sevres, in 1920.
So Palestine is the ONLY legal country there.

So close and yet so far. The government of Palestine was .... ?

The UN has no authority take half of Palestine and give it [away].

Exactly. The UN has no authority to remove territory from a sovereign nation and give it away to another sovereign state, let alone to some fuzzy legal concept of self-determination.

 

[Coyote]

There has always been a larger contingent of Israeli's who support Arab Palestinian independence and a peaceful two-state solution.

That has been changing though hasn’t it? And I don’t mean post-Oct 7, but prior to that.

 

[Shusha]

That has been changing though hasn’t it? And I don’t mean post-Oct 7, but prior to that.

I agree, it has been changing. (Certainly post-October 7). Reasons for that? Push-back against the shifting and expanding "status quo" becoming the binding solution without negotiation and agreement. Push-back against the insistence of the "world" and the UN to impose a solution by twisting and abusing international law. And some continued push-back for equality of religious freedom.

 

[Shusha]

Wait times:
Canadian border check points, max wait 35 minutes.

 

[Coyote]

 

[Coyote]

I agree, it has been changing. (Certainly post-October 7). Reasons for that? Push-back against the shifting and expanding "status quo" becoming the binding solution without negotiation and agreement. Push-back against the insistence of the "world" and the UN to impose a solution by twisting and abusing international law. And some continued push-back for equality of religious freedom.

I disagree. I don’t think it’s “push-back”. How is it “imposing a solution” when it was a so,utiin agreed to through negotiates by Israel? It has also been Israel’s unspoken policy for a while to quietly make it much more difficult to create two states. I think it could be argued that the Palestinian attempts to go directly to the UN is “push back” for the intractable stalemate and lack of any progress.

What do you mean by push back for equality of religious freedom?

 

[Shusha]

Your response is entirely expected, which is why I was hoping for specifics. And remember the framework is "degradation". Is it "degrading" to go through a checkpoint or border crossing? What conditions lead to relatively easy and friendly border crossings?

Here are some examples of how rights rights are affected compared to Israeli citizens.

Let's compare this to Israeli citizens, then. And specifically, to Jewish Israeli citizens. (I'm largely basing this on my knowledge of how it works in Hebron for my own familiarity. I would also caution that I'm not entirely convinced that we in the west, generally, but also you and I specifically, fully understand how the checkpoints work. This is definitely a topic in which slogans and soundbytes get bandied about.)

Depending on where he lives, an average Palestinian may have to contend with multiple check points that may or may not be manned, may be closed and that may be random and unpredictable in order to get from where he lives in tbe West Bank to where he works, also in the West Bank.

First, there is no such thing as the "West Bank" in any legal terminology. It is merely a descriptive phrase. So, the above should be properly phrased as: "...to get from where he lives in Area A (or Area B or Area C or Israel) to where he works in Area A (or Area B or Area C or Israel)."

You can see immediately that this correct framing makes clear that the person is travelling through different zones with different legal requirements and different governing bodies.

And you can also see that Palestinian non-Israeli citizens can travel to all four of these Areas. They have no restrictions. (Israelis are legally restricted from travelling to Area A, and have to pass through checkpoints, yep, same ones, when travelling to Area B).

In Hebron, Arab Israelis travel through checkpoints from any area of the city to any other area. Jews (yes, specifically Jewish Israelis) are prevented from passing through checkpoints.

I absolutely understand the inconvenience of these checkpoints (not to be forgotten that these checkpoints were caused by intifadas, terrorism, and the murder of Israeli citizens, btw). I think it is an unworkable status quo. It is also a necessary status quo.

It is not apartheid. Nor is it "degrading".

The solutions are: a peace treaty delineating national borders and a cessation of violence.

 

[Shusha]

Israel had a global level of support after October 7, much as we did post 911.

As we should have.

The problem is that Israel should continue to have support, specifically against sovereign nations and/or terrorist groups attacking her citizens for no legal or just cause, such as Lebanon.

 

[Shusha]

I disagree. I don’t think it’s “push-back”. How is it “imposing a solution” when it was a so,utiin agreed to through negotiates by Israel?

Yes, but what was the solution agreed to through negotiations with Israel in 1994 and what is the expectation now? How has it expanded or changed?

It has also been Israel’s unspoken policy for a while to quietly make it much more difficult to create two states.

My opinion? Requiring ethnic cleansing as part of a "solution" is immoral, illegal, and an astonishing double standard against Israel. The eventual State of Palestine should have Jewish citizens. To require otherwise is unconscionable.

I think it could be argued that the Palestinian attempts to go directly to the UN is “push back” for the intractable stalemate and lack of any progress.

Palestinian self-governing bodies are required, by agreement, to treat with Israel and not impose a solution. Just so, the UN is required, by its charter, not to impose a solution, but to encourage peace and treaties.

What do you mean by push back for equality of religious freedom?

Jews must be given the rights to religious freedom and to be able to pray in their holy places. Period.

 

[abu afak]

The Israeli’s never really wanted land for peace, there was always a contingent unwilling to give up any of the land that was taken. They withdrew from Gaza because of the high economic and political costs incurred in maintaining a security presence for a few settlements.

Rigby5, etc

You guys know me from posting in Science/Sci-Tech, and Env/Climate, but THIS Topic is what brought me here and what I posted in near exclusively for Many Years after my joing USMB in 2006.

The Israelis Always wanted land for Peace until after 2005 when a majority swung against it after seeing what happened post 2005/Gaza-Giveback/Hamas election and attacks.

Israel was in favor of sharing the land and was FOR the 1947 (UN Res 181) partition plan. They declared statehood on that basis, but the Arabs did not agree and attacked hoping to wipe out Israel and the Jews in it. They lost and some land with it.

Between 1948 and 1967 when the Arabs controlled current 'p-p-p-palaestine' there was no move to make a state. Arabs didn't buy that shlt!
Jordan ANNEXED the West Bank and gave them all citizenship/passports.
Egypt ruled Gaza.
It was only after Losing the 1967 war that Husein 'gave' it to the 'palestinians'/Arabs left over from the greater British Mandate in which millions became 'Jordanians'/the First 'Palestine.'

Further...
Israel offered back all the conqured 1967 land after that defensive if Preemptive war in exchange for mere recognition by the Arab states.
They refused with the famous "Three Nos" of the Khartoum Conference of August 1967. (google it rookies/everyone)
Only thus "Occupation," if slowly.

“I think that this is the first war in history that on the morrow the victors sued for peace and the vanquished called for unconditional surrender.”
- Abba Eban

Much more but a bit at a time.
`

 

[jwoodie]

You all sound like a bunch of pull-string puppets. All of you are simply cheering for your own team. Why don't some of you put forward suggestions as to how this dispute might actually be settled? As I said before, if this is the mentality at play between Israel and Palestine, the US should get the hell out and let them kill each other.

 

[Shusha]

You all sound like a bunch of pull-string puppets. All of you are simply cheering for your own team. Why don't some of you put forward suggestions as to how this dispute might actually be settled? As I said before, if this is the mentality at play between Israel and Palestine, the US should get the hell out and let them kill each other.

The solution lies in defining the problem.

 

[Coyote]

Your response is entirely expected, which is why I was hoping for specifics. And remember the framework is "degradation". Is it "degrading" to go through a checkpoint or border crossing? What conditions lead to relatively easy and friendly border crossings?


Let's compare this to Israeli citizens, then. And specifically, to Jewish Israeli citizens. (I'm largely basing this on my knowledge of how it works in Hebron for my own familiarity. I would also caution that I'm not entirely convinced that we in the west, generally, but also you and I specifically, fully understand how the checkpoints work. This is definitely a topic in which slogans and soundbytes get bandied about.)

First, there is no such thing as the "West Bank" in any legal terminology. It is merely a descriptive phrase. So, the above should be properly phrased as: "...to get from where he lives in Area A (or Area B or Area C or Israel) to where he works in Area A (or Area B or Area C or Israel)."

You can see immediately that this correct framing makes clear that the person is travelling through different zones with different legal requirements and different governing bodies.

Ok, that is a more accurate way of looking at it.

And you can also see that Palestinian non-Israeli citizens can travel to all four of these Areas. They have no restrictions. (Israelis are legally restricted from travelling to Area A, and have to pass through checkpoints, yep, same ones, when travelling to Area B).

I believe that is incorrect. There are considerable restrictions, at least for the Palestinians.

In Hebron, Arab Israelis travel through checkpoints from any area of the city to any other area. Jews (yes, specifically Jewish Israelis) are prevented from passing through checkpoints.

So…Hebron is interesting. I wasn’t aware that it was divided or the extent of it’s contentious history. It looks like it is composed of areas labeled H1, H2, and some settlements. H2 and the settlements are Jewish right? And none of it is Area A, B or C?

So are you saying Palestinians can freely travel to any part of Hebron and Jews cannot?

I absolutely understand the inconvenience of these checkpoints (not to be forgotten that these checkpoints were caused by intifadas, terrorism, and the murder of Israeli citizens, btw). I think it is an unworkable status quo. It is also a necessary status quo.

The violence that the checkpoints are supposed to address is not solely coming from the Palestinian side. The continuing expansion of settlements and Israeli expropriation of land for state or military purposes has fragmented the territory in a way that almost forces conflict between two very different populations where one has everything to lose and the other everything to gain.

It is not apartheid. Nor is it "degrading".

The solutions are: a peace treaty delineating national borders and a cessation of violence.

That we can agree on.

 

[Coyote]

You all sound like a bunch of pull-string puppets. All of you are simply cheering for your own team. Why don't some of you put forward suggestions as to how this dispute might actually be settled? As I said before, if this is the mentality at play between Israel and Palestine, the US should get the hell out and let them kill each other.

Actually…we have on a number of threads here discussed various possible solutions, some outside the box.

 

[Shusha]

...almost forces conflict between two very different populations where one has everything to lose and the other everything to gain.

Are we agreeing on which is which here?