Is it Possible for Israel and Palestine to Peacefully Coexist?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Read again my post, slowly. Maybe that helps.

Fast or slow, they never invaded an imaginary country.

 

[Lisa558]

Fast or slow, they never invaded an imaginary country.

The only ones invading were the Muslim monsters on Oct 7.

 

[ESay]

Fast or slow, they never invaded an imaginary country.

No problem. How our Russian friends like to repeat 'might is right'. It seems that Netanyahu, like his friend Putin, likes to argue about imaginary countries and nations (his friend uses the term 'artificial') that never existed before, were invented by someone else, artificial borders that were never supposed to be borders, etc.

Might is right. Or, as our dear friend here Shusha would have used some cool Latin expression about that, 'migtus um rightimus' (or something like that). As long as Israel can exercise this rule any arguments are pointless.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No problem. How our Russian friends like to repeat 'might is right'. It seems that Netanyahu, like his friend Putin, likes to argue about imaginary countries and nations (his friend uses the term 'artificial') that never existed before, were invented by someone else, artificial borders that were never supposed to be borders, etc.

Might is right. Or, as our dear friend here Shusha would have used some cool Latin expression about that, 'migtus um rightimus' (or something like that). As long as Israel can exercise this rule any arguments are pointless.

If the Arabs aren't happy near Israel, they can move to Arabia.

 

[ESay]

If the Arabs aren't happy near Israel, they can move to Arabia.

Sure thing. And Jews to Egypt.

 

[Coyote]

Well, nothing is wrong with respecting each other's rights to worship. The problem is that the international community is not holding the Muslim community as a global whole accountable for adopting that respect. The problem is that the international community is also not holding the Muslim community as a global whole accountable for using violence as a method of preventing the religious worship rights of others.

I think that is a dangerous view. “As a whole”. Let me turn it around: should the international community hold Jews, “as a whole” accountable for Israel’s actions? You see where this is going, right? Around the world we see violence and hateful rhetoric aimed at Jews and Muslims (and others) precisely because someone feels they are “accountable” as a “global whole” for something others in their religious/racial/ethnic group have done or believed to have done.

The issue with sacred sites in the Middle East, birthplace of three, closely related, worldwide religions that have been in some form of conflict from inception is enormous and even the perception of “wrong doing” is volatile and this is why I say when it comes to religion nothing is rational. Add to that a sense of religious entitlement and a complete lack of trust on all sides as to the motivations of each other. It is a very delicate balance that, imo, only a true peace with a shared, possibly secular, stewardship and no tolerance for the behavior of extremists, could resolve. I am not sure it is possible to reason with religious extremists whether Muslim, Jewish, or Christian.

Why does the international community not insist that the Jewish people have the right to worship in the most holy place for the Jewish people?

I don’t know that they insist on much of anything as a whole or recognize as an important issue unless they are Muslim or Jewish. When it comes to religion it is not very rational. This site has description of the history tensions involved in the current agreement: 13 Facts about the Temple Mount / Haram al-Sharif and the Struggle of the Temple Movements - Peace Now.

Also, there is a distinct difference between a usurped sacred space and a shared sacred space. You seem to understand this only one-sided from the Muslim perspective. As in, if I tear down a mosque and build a synagogue I'm not creating a "shared sacred space", I'm fundamentally disrespecting and destroying a Muslim space. But you don't seem to consider this from the Jewish perspective. You built a mosque over the sacred Temple space. Building that mosque is not creating a "shared sacred space". It is fundamentally disrespecting and destroying a Jewish sacred space.

I disagree. For one, you are holding actions from over a thousand years ago to today’s standards. How many churches and mosques have been built over the conquered religious sites of others? Look at India, with the rise in Hindu Nationalism and it’s associated violence towards minority religions, Hindus are tearing down mosques built hundreds of years ago during the Mughal reign and building Hindu temples despite the fact that the Mughals are an integral part of India’s culture. Even Jews, in their history, as an ancient world power conquered territory and likely built over the religious sites of the conquered. Are you going to hold to today’s standard and allow sites to be torn down because another religion claims earlier rights? It is de facto a shared religious if it is meaningful to more more than one faith. Unfortunately religious tolerance is a modern concept and a fragile one.

 

[Lisa558]

Sure thing. And Jews to Egypt.

Why would Jews want to go to Egypt, full of Muslims?

Now Gazans going to Arab countries, that makes sense.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Why would Jews want to go to Egypt, full of Muslims?

Now Gazans going to Arab countries, that makes sense.

It makes sense because if peace is the goal, it is the only proposal on the table that will achieve peace.

 

[Coyote]

Oh, wow…..how did I miss this antisemitic lie?

When did I ever say Israel should destroy Gaza and kill all its people? That’s actually accusing me of wanting a genocide.

I said the complete destruction of Gaza and its people. You don’t have to kill everyone to destroy a people. Look at our own history with our indigenous peoples. You can deny their validity, destroy their cultural heritage, indoctrinate their children with another culture, destroy their houses of worship, obliterate their territory until it’s unlivable, expel them from their homeland.

You are also on record in support of ethnic cleansing and have not said a single that indicates you want anything less than the removal of the population to someplace else. How is the truth antisemitic?

And how is Israel on its way to doing this either? Something like 99% of civilians remain alive, and this is after considering how the Hamas savages are using them as body shield.

Just for record Lisa…many internationally recognized genocides have left most of a population alive so using the criteria that the genociders weren’t successful because they were stopped or their efforts were limited by other factors doesn’t make it any less a genocide.

Are you aware that Israel has been using human shields? This is not a new revelation either, it was done during Operation Cast Lead as well.

Gazan ‘human shield’ for IDF shot dead in error by officer — report

Palestinian was said to be assisting troops in Nahal Brigade's 931st Battalion in Rafah area over summer; army has said the practice is forbidden, but does not deny it took place

www.timesofisrael.com

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/24/middleeast/palestinians-human-shields-israel-military-gaza-intl/index.html

Israeli forces use five Palestinian children as human shields

Israeli forces have used at least five Palestinian children as human shields in the first part of 2023, according to documentation collected by DCIP.

www.dci-palestine.org

And there you go again: “beginning to look like a genocide.” Are you freaking kidding me? Is your bias against Jews so strong that you are willing to spread blood libel?

Israel is no different than any other nation.

P.S. I asked in the Feedback thread why the mods are allowing posters to spread antisemitic propoganda on “upstairs” threads rather than move them to the Rubber Room or Badlands, where they place offensive lies against other groups. I guess I have my answer now.

Why are you allowed to spread racist and Islamophobic propaganda?

 

[Coyote]

Your post is nothing more than appeals to emotion and inflammatory rhetoric. Israel is no where near "the complete destruction of Gaza and its people". Nor does Israel have any such intent.

First off, my post is based on the posting history and TOBE between between myself and the person I was responding to. Do not remove the context.

Second: over 80% of Gaza is destroyed, either complete rubble or structures to damaged to live in. There are no clean water facilities or facilities of any kind remaining. Mosques, cultural heritage sites, schools,etc. have been destroyed. 80% sounds like pretty close to the complete destruction of Gaza…not “nowhere near”.

That is also brings me to another thing I’ve been thinking about. You often make points that stick in my mind because they provoke serious introspection (why do I take this position or feel passionately about something). In this case, in one of our conversations you asked me why do I always assume negative intent on Israel’s part, and above, you mention intent again. So I considered it.

My view of “intent” when talking about nations is not unique to Israel. Nations act in national self interest. They have to in order to maintain their ability to function or grow or spread their particular ideologies or power, or protect their citizens, ideologies or power. The view that nations act in altruistic manners is usually a misconstruing of intent and yes, it is a somewhat Machiavellian view. I look at ALL nations in this way because history has all too often uncovered a dark side to seemingly altruistic actions (I can give non-Israel examples if you like, starting with my own country.)

Given history, why would you automatically assume good intentions in conflict for any nation? When it comes to Israel, why do you automatically assume good intentions specifically when faced statements and actions by the faction currently in power? And especially now, after Trump’s meeting with Netanyahu and subsequent announcement of intention regarding Gaza?

But let's explore "it is time to explore approaches". What "approaches" have been offered by the international community or by the remnant government of Gaza or by any other relevant parties? What concrete, practical, realistic, ready-to-implement plans are on offer? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone? Oh, there aren't any.

Multiple approaches have been offered in terms of Gaza’s future. But part of the issue is Israel is ultimately in control of that because it militarily controls the territory and its own security needs are primary. However it has refused to articulate any real plan beyond vague ideas (and I wonder if this is a balancing act to keep Netanyahu in power with his fragile coalition?) Without Israel’s willingness to commit to putting together a plan there can be no concrete ready to go planning.

So approaches. First, I think we need to identify problems.

Allow PA to govern Gaza’s. Possibly a good option but with significant issues revolving around legitimacy in Gaza, problems with corruption within PA and years Israel’s deliberate weakening of the PA’s role.

Another problem…what about the remnants of Hamas? Hamas cannot be eradicated imo. Hamas has both military and political wings. Is there any daylight there? With significant numbers of high level members killed, is it possible to work with what is left? (Excluding any who had a role in Oct 7 and should face justice). In addition all hostages would need to be released.


Another possibility. Is there someone who the Palestinians could rally around who might have the legitimacy to negotiate on their behalf and work towards forming a state? One suggestion I heard floated a years ago was Marwan Barghouti.


Interesting article here on the issue regarding legitimacy and governance:

Who will lead the Palestinians? This is a question they must be allowed to debate and answer themselves | Dana El Kurd

The current leadership is seen as either absent or illegitimate. A postwar plan must not simply repackage it, says researcher of Palestinian and Arab politics Dana El Kurd

www.theguardian.com

 

[Shusha]

The Arab countries rejected this plan and began a war against newly-formed Jewish state. The result of this war was an armistice agreement between the warring sides that put in place a demarcation line that later became a recognized border of the Palestinian state.

So, yes, you agree that territory can be acquired through acts of belligerent armed force by states with no rights to sovereignty in the territory. And you agree that Agreements between states can be unilaterally abrogated.

 

[Shusha]

In other words, the side that managed to be the first in claiming its sovereignty over the territory has the right to own it. At least according to Israel's narratives. Why the Palestinian Arabs can't use this principle is known only to the Ancient Rome, apparently.

No. The only people who developed the capacity to emerge as a State by fulfilling the necessary requirements, particularly forming a government. There was no other government in 1948. (Arguably still isn't).

 

[Shusha]

That's great. How can a person with a black-and-white mindset shake anyone from this paradigm is a wonder for me.

I have a black-and-white mindset when it comes to facts. I am open-minded about how to create solutions. You can only entertain one solution.

 

[Shusha]

Might is right. Or, as our dear friend here Shusha would have used some cool Latin expression about that, 'migtus um rightimus' (or something like that). As long as Israel can exercise this rule any arguments are pointless.

I have never argued for "might is right", nor have I ever demanded exclusive Israeli control. Clearly, since the solution I offered is NOT exclusive Israeli control.

 

[Shusha]

I think that is a dangerous view. “As a whole”. Let me turn it around: should the international community hold Jews, “as a whole” accountable for Israel’s actions? You see where this is going, right? Around the world we see violence and hateful rhetoric aimed at Jews and Muslims (and others) precisely because someone feels they are “accountable” as a “global whole” for something others in their religious/racial/ethnic group have done or believed to have done.

I disagree. I believe you are conflating holding individuals accountable for the whole as opposed to holding the collective accountable for acts of the institutions. (I'm also speaking specifically about religious freedom and worship here, not the acts of States.)

It is a very delicate balance that, imo, only a true peace with a shared, possibly secular, stewardship and no tolerance for the behavior of extremists, could resolve. I am not sure it is possible to reason with religious extremists whether Muslim, Jewish, or Christian.

When a religious site is under the stewardship of the Jewish people, the sites are open to everyone. That is simple fact.

Are you going to hold to today’s standard and allow sites to be torn down because another religion claims earlier rights? It is de facto a shared religious if it is meaningful to more more than one faith. Unfortunately religious tolerance is a modern concept and a fragile one.

No, I've already said that I do not believe it is right to tear down existing structures. I do believe it is important to acknowledge the difference between a shared site and one that was usurped and repurposed. Like a First Nations land acknowledgement, this prevents a holy site from being erased from the history of a peoples or a religious faith. This is what is being done now with the Temple Mount. We have people here on this thread arguing that there are no Jewish holy sites in all of Israel, and no Jewish history there. This is genocidal erasure of an entire peoples.

 

[Shusha]

Second: over 80% of Gaza is destroyed, either complete rubble or structures to damaged to live in.

Do you have a source for this? I've seen this number thrown around for a year now, but haven't been able to find an actual source. The only one I found some time ago counted "damaged" as a single broken window.

 

[Shusha]

That is also brings me to another thing I’ve been thinking about. You often make points that stick in my mind because they provoke serious introspection (why do I take this position or feel passionately about something).

Same.

Given history, why would you automatically assume good intentions in conflict for any nation? When it comes to Israel, why do you automatically assume good intentions specifically when faced statements and actions by the faction currently in power? And especially now, after Trump’s meeting with Netanyahu and subsequent announcement of intention regarding Gaza?

Well, to be fair, I generally tend to adopt good intentions as my default position. That just tends to be my personality.

Multiple approaches have been offered in terms of Gaza’s future. But part of the issue is Israel is ultimately in control of that because it militarily controls the territory and its own security needs are primary.

Exactly. Which would seem to lead us to the inevitable conclusion that Israel is the only viable governing party for at least the immediate future. Israel is going to be held responsible for Gaza anyway, so why shouldn't she actually take responsibility? And, importantly, have everyone be okay with it.

So approaches. First, I think we need to identify problems.

Problems:

• general population is radicalized
• plentiful funding available for terrorist activities
• lack of economic development and growth
• disconnected from international community

Allow PA to govern Gaza’s. Possibly a good option but with significant issues revolving around legitimacy in Gaza, problems with corruption within PA and years Israel’s deliberate weakening of the PA’s role.

Weak. Corrupt. Lacks trust. Not capable of controlling population. And/or not incentivized to elimination terrorism. Not a good option.

Another problem…what about the remnants of Hamas? Hamas cannot be eradicated imo. Hamas has both military and political wings.

Hamas needs to be removed from power. Completely. And must be prevented from any reorganizing or rebuilding. This will require strength and will. Hamas can also be eradicated, but it will take time, and by time I mean generations.

Another possibility. Is there someone who the Palestinians could rally around who might have the legitimacy to negotiate on their behalf and work towards forming a state? One suggestion I heard floated a years ago was Marwan Barghouti.

No comment on Barghouti. Ugh.

 

[Coyote]

I disagree. I believe you are conflating holding individuals accountable for the whole as opposed to holding the collective accountable for acts of the institutions. (I'm also speaking specifically about religious freedom and worship here, not the acts of States.)

I am not seeing that and can’t agree. For one, a religion is not an institution except in a few cases. I can you hold collective that is as fragmented as these religions responsible? Again, flip the script. Should all Jews apologize for the violence Zionist settlers are committing against Palestinians? Never mind that they don’t all share those views.

For Christianity and Islam at least, there is no central heirarchy, no centralized view of doctine or rules or who is even considered an authority. These are broad world faiths.

Exceptions might be the Catholic Church which does operate as an institution, with defined heirarchy and leadership and rules that that come the leader.

Asking Muslims to apologize for the violence of other Muslims or the acts of extremists harkens back to the post 911 era where people were demanding anyone who was Muslim apologize for the acts of the terrorists even though they had nothing to do, certainly didn’t support it, but just shared the faith. There is considerable danger in this.

When a religious site is under the stewardship of the Jewish people, the sites are open to everyone. That is simple fact.

I agree. The stewardship is based on an agreement with Jordan and Israel has maintained it with extreme fairness and sensitivity despite provocations, including from their own extremists.

No, I've already said that I do not believe it is right to tear down existing structures. I do believe it is important to acknowledge the difference between a shared site and one that was usurped and repurposed.

This is where I do not agree. When you use words like usurped, you are inserting inflammatory language and rejecting the rights of others by trying to differentiate a shared site from a “usurped “ site. One is benign and the other malign.

Like a First Nations land acknowledgement, this prevents a holy site from being erased from the history of a peoples or a religious faith.

Acknowledge that it is a shared site, acknowledge that it originated with another faith or peoples, provide a complete history. But once you start adding moral or value judgements to it, based on actions hundreds or thousands of years ago, you divide those who worship there into legitimate or usurper and that doesn’t go down in any religion. That is also exactly the sentiment that is behind the Hindu nationalist movement’s destruction of Moghul era mosques. Peoples throughout history have used the holy sites or other important landmarks of prior people (either as a symbol of their conquest, a recognition of the power of tbe place or a feeling of shared identity). Jewish temp,es were built over Cannonite temples, should that be acknowledged?

This is what is being done now with the Temple Mount. We have people here on this thread arguing that there are no Jewish holy sites in all of Israel, and no Jewish history there. This is genocidal erasure of an entire peoples.

I agree and do not agree with arguments those people are making any more than I agree with ones denying Muslims or Christians their rights to their holy sites.

Erasing a people by deliberately or systematically denying their identity, validity or rights to historical narratives and landmarks is wrong and could be considered a form of genocide imo, though it might not be in the strictly legal sense.

 

[ESay]

So, yes, you agree that territory can be acquired through acts of belligerent armed force by states with no rights to sovereignty in the territory. And you agree that Agreements between states can be unilaterally abrogated.

Both Jordan and Egypt removed their troops from the Palestinian territory and recognized the Palestinian state. Israel can't make this excuse forever. It is time for Israel to do the same.

 

[ESay]

No. The only people who developed the capacity to emerge as a State by fulfilling the necessary requirements, particularly forming a government. There was no other government in 1948. (Arguably still isn't).

Israel was never supposed to acquire all territory of the Mandatory Palestine. Vacuum of power on your opponents lands doesn't give you a right on these lands.