Is it Possible for Israel and Palestine to Peacefully Coexist?

[ESay]

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.

Not true. Your mindset is strictly one-sided, and doesn't offer any solutions acceptable for the both sides.

 

[ESay]

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.

It is, that is supposed to last 50 years, at least. Never acceptable for the other side.

 

[Shusha]

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.

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.

I am not making myself clear, as you are still conflating individuals with a collective. No, "all" Jews shouldn't apologize for the violence committed by certain individuals. No, "all" Muslims shouldn't apologize for acts of extremists. That isn't at all what I mean. Take the individuals out of it on both ends.

What I mean is that UNESCO should be pressured into ensuring recognition of BOTH the Jewish and the Islamic history of the Temple Mount; that the Islamic Waqf should be pressured into permitting free and equal access to ALL on the Temple Mount, including the right to worship according to each faith; that the Islamic Waqf should self-regulate to prevent the stockpiling of weapons in holy sites. Further, that this pressure should be both internal (coming from the Muslim community) and external (coming from a global position of equality and religious freedom).

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.

The language of the peace treaty has quite a bit more emphasis on freedom of religious worship and equal access than the actual status quo.

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.

I do not think it is inherently malicious to acknowledge that a mosque was originally a church. Of that a Hindu temple was originally a mosque. If you don't like "usurped", we can come up with new language. Colonized? Conquered? Converted? What would you suggest?

 

[Shusha]

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.

But, by your own argument, it was the act of belligerent armed force that created the "Palestinian territory". I'm not suggesting that Israel keep it, as evidenced by my suggested solution. I'm arguing that the borders be negotiated in good faith between the parties, and not delineated by an "illegal" act of war.

 

[Coyote]

I

I do not think it is inherently malicious to acknowledge that a mosque was originally a church. Of that a Hindu temple was originally a mosque. If you don't like "usurped", we can come up with new language. Colonized? Conquered? Converted? What would you suggest?

Most of those terms are exactly the kind of inflammatory language you object to when applied to Israel’s actions.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

If you weren't so allergic to facts, you would have said after Egypt started a war with Israel in 1967, both Egypt and Jordan abandoned the territories as they fled from advancing Israeli troops and the territories fell under Israeli control, and that while Egypt and Jordan were in control of the territories (1948 - 1967) they had no intension of allowing a Palestinian state; also relevant is the fact that immediately after that war, Israel offered to return the territories to Egypt and Jordan in return for peace, but the Arabs rejected that offer.

This is what you would have said if you weren't so allergic to facts.

 

[Shusha]

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.

But the whole point is that there were NOT two territories. There was no division of the Mandate for Palestine (regardless of what you think was "supposed" to happen, it didn't happen). International law does not transfer territories and statehood to an absence of government. It simply does not work like that.

 

[Shusha]

Not true. Your mindset is strictly one-sided, and doesn't offer any solutions acceptable for the both sides.

Not because the solution isn't acceptable, but because one side refuses to accept anything but a single solution.

 

[Coyote]

Not true. Your mindset is strictly one-sided, and doesn't offer any solutions acceptable for the both sides.

A bit unfair, Shusha is one of the very few people here who will engage in solutions that don’t involve the expulsion or extermination of one side or the other and merit thoughtful discussion.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

Who said Israel was never supposed to acquire all of Mandatory Palestine?

 

[Shusha]

Most of those terms are exactly the kind of inflammatory language you object to when applied to Israel’s actions.

Because Israel has never done any of those things. (Actually, there are two synagogues in Israel that were converted from mosques.)

 

[Coyote]

Because Israel has never done any of those things. (Actually, there are two synagogues in Israel that were converted from mosques.)

I think that depends on how you look at it (colonized, conquered). Using inflammatory language for one opens the door for an examination of the other. Israel has conquered the Palestinians. That is factual. Settlers are successfully expanding their settlements through violence, into Palestinian areas and are lining up for Gaza. That could be considered colonizing. I think they may even refer to that themselves through a biblical entitlement.

When it comes to these religious places why is it not possible to acknowledge they are a shared site and that they were originally historically Jewish? That is how it should be handled.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Both Jordan and Egypt removed their troops from the Palestinian territory and recognized the Palestinian state.

Back in the 1940s? When Egypt and Jordan controlled the territory?
Link?

 

[Shusha]

Israel has conquered the Palestinians. That is factual.

Disagree. Feel free to explain what you mean though, as I might misunderstand.

Settlers are successfully expanding their settlements through violence, into Palestinian areas

Not so. There are no Israelis living outside of the territories Israel has legal right to apply sovereignty over.

and are lining up for Gaza. That could be considered colonizing.

One can not colonize one's own homeland. That would not be colonizing, that would be reconstituting/decolonizing.

When it comes to these religious places why is it not possible to acknowledge they are a shared site and that they were originally historically Jewish? That is how it should be handled.

Sure. Now, how can we pressure the Islamic world to acknowledge that and permit equal access to the shared site for people of all faiths?

 

[toomuchtime_]

I think that depends on how you look at it (colonized, conquered). Using inflammatory language for one opens the door for an examination of the other. Israel has conquered the Palestinians. That is factual. Settlers are successfully expanding their settlements through violence, into Palestinian areas and are lining up for Gaza. That could be considered colonizing. I think they may even refer to that themselves through a biblical entitlement.

When it comes to these religious places why is it not possible to acknowledge they are a shared site and that they were originally historically Jewish? That is how it should be handled.

You remain the Queen of Bullshit. No Israeli settlements in the West Bank have expanded through violence.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Yeah, those Arabs really fucked up.

 

[Dante]

From hawk to peacemaker​

of course you do not care

you are like this guy below

View attachment 1073803
Hagai Amir, who helped plan the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, walks out from Ayalon prison, near the city of Ramle, Israel Credit: Photo: AP

Accomplice to killer of Israeli leader Yitzhak Rabin defiant after release from prison​

The unrepentant brother of the man who killed Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was released from prison after serving 16-and-a-half years for complicity in a murder that stunned Israel.

I get ill every time I think of these cretins and assassins.

Netanyahu feeds them

 

[Dante]

You remain the Queen of Bullshit. No Israeli settlements in the West Bank have expanded through violence.

Bullshit Alert!

 

[Dante]

I think that depends on how you look at it (colonized, conquered). Using inflammatory language for one opens the door for an examination of the other. Israel has conquered the Palestinians. That is factual. Settlers are successfully expanding their settlements through violence, into Palestinian areas and are lining up for Gaza. That could be considered colonizing. I think they may even refer to that themselves through a biblical entitlement.

When it comes to these religious places why is it not possible to acknowledge they are a shared site and that they were originally historically Jewish? That is how it should be handled.

Because hate Trumps peace

Think: former PM Yitzhak Rabin

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The only thing that the Israelis and the Palestinians seem to agree on is that their opposites should not exist as sovereign countries. Is this an immutable law of religious beliefs, or is it a stubborn bargaining position that both sides have taken? Will it ultimately take the removal of millions of Israelis or Palestinians from the area to resolve this conflict?

The idea of resettling local populations to other areas has been around (and practiced) for thousands of years. [Even Hitler wanted to resettle European Jews to the French colony of Madagascar before that became unrealistic.] Are there any geographical options today that might separate these two warring parties before they annihilate each other?

The answer is no. That is why Hamas must die.