Is it Possible for Israel and Palestine to Peacefully Coexist?

[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.

We both know Israel did not conquer the Palestinians. In 1948 the so called Palestinians along with the Arab states tried to conquer the nascent state of Israel but failed and many so called Palestinians were displaced in the war; however, after the war Israel signed on to UN 194 and agreed to allow those displaced so called Palestinians to return if they would agree to live in peace with Israel, but none of them accepted this offer.

In 1967 Egypt started a war with Israel and in the course of losing the war Egypt and Jordan abandoned Gaza and the West Bank to Israel and after the war when Israel offered to return all the land it had captured in return for peace Egypt and Jordan refused. No honest person would characterize this as Israel conquering the so called Palestinians.

 

[ESay]

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.

No, the Palestinian territory was created by the UN Commission at the request of the British government, and endorsed by the UN resolution.

 

[ESay]

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.

It was. The UN Partition plan.

 

[ESay]

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

Solution can be acceptable if it looks like a compromise for the both sides.

 

[ESay]

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.

Agree, she may well be the most decent character in their camp. But really, do you consider her plan of 50-year Israeli full control and then returning a diminished territory as workable for the opposite side?

 

[Coyote]

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

Israel decisively controls all the territory would claim for their own. Israel militarily controls the entire territory and can exact whatever punative measures it wants to maintain that control. Palestinians have no state and few rights in comparison to citizens. The very decisive actions in Gaza and now the West Bank pretty much cement Israel’s status as conquering. I don’t think anyone would argue that. Israel calls the shots and Israel ultimately determines the territorial outcomes.

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

That is arguable, let’s just stick to disputed territory and leave it at that.

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

I disagree. People move around, that has been the humanities pattern since forever. When one civilization leaves or is conquered or willingly absorbed into another (not all “conquests” are violent, many are benign) then a new one rises.

The people of today are not the same people of thousands of years ago. That is not decolonizing.

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?

I don’t know. Religion is incredibly touchy and the more devout, the less there is a willingness to compromise. I do think a durable and just peace that acknowledges and provides for a Palestinian state would go a long ways towards setting the stage for greater trust, cooperation and religious equity. This can’t happen until there is TRUST on both sides rather than fear that the other will attempt to destroy or bar them from sacred spaces.

Saudi Arabia would be the lead I think, in any of this.

 

[Shusha]

Solution can be acceptable if it looks like a compromise for the both sides.

What would be the compromise on the Arab side?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Israel decisively controls all the territory would claim for their own. Israel militarily controls the entire territory and can exact whatever punative measures it wants to maintain that control. Palestinians have no state and few rights in comparison to citizens. The very decisive actions in Gaza and now the West Bank pretty much cement Israel’s status as conquering. I don’t think anyone would argue that. Israel calls the shots and Israel ultimately determines the territorial outcomes.



That is arguable, let’s just stick to disputed territory and leave it at that.



I disagree. People move around, that has been the humanities pattern since forever. When one civilization leaves or is conquered or willingly absorbed into another (not all “conquests” are violent, many are benign) then a new one rises.

The people of today are not the same people of thousands of years ago. That is not decolonizing.


I don’t know. Religion is incredibly touchy and the more devout, the less there is a willingness to compromise. I do think a durable and just peace that acknowledges and provides for a Palestinian state would go a long ways towards setting the stage for greater trust, cooperation and religious equity. This can’t happen until there is TRUST on both sides rather than fear that the other will attempt to destroy or bar them from sacred spaces.

Saudi Arabia would be the lead I think, in any of this.

As always, nothing but twisted antisemitic bullshit from you. If Israel were in control of all the territory, there would have been no Oct 7 massacre and there would be no fighting in Gaza now and no Hamas and Islamic Jihad cells in the West Bank plotting more terror attacks against Israel. What we all know is the single cause of this conflict is the absolute refusal for over 100 years of the so called Palestinians to live in peace with Jews. This conflict has never been about the Palestinians losing land, it has always been about their refusal to allow Jews to own land.

The reason the so called Palestinians don't have a state is that they never wanted a state of their own, they just didn't want the Jews to have one. Every outbreak of violence in the last 100 years has been initiated by the Arabs and every peace overture has been proposed by Israel and scorned by the Arabs, who insist they want all of Israel.

 

[San Souci]

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 point is moot since there is no such thing as a "Palestinian".

 

[San Souci]

What would be the compromise on the Arab side?

Admit they are Evil and clear out of Israel.

 

[Shusha]

It was. The UN Partition plan.

Was not implemented. Could not have been implemented. Rejected by the Arabs. No legal standing. Opportunity lost.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It was. The UN Partition plan.
View attachment 1075465

If the Arabs weren't such babies........

 

[ESay]

What would be the compromise on the Arab side?

Their scrap their maximal ideas, recognize Israel and establish cooperational relations with it.

 

[ESay]

Was not implemented. Could not have been implemented. Rejected by the Arabs. No legal standing. Opportunity lost.

That is all right (except of the second sentence). As I heard lately 'an Arab will never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity'. But there is only two possible solutions (if excluding the extremes entirely) - a separate states solution, and 'a one country for two nations' solution. Something tells me, the former one is preferable for Israel.

 

[Shusha]

That is all right (except of the second sentence).

Not sure how you are interpreting that second sentence.

As I heard lately 'an Arab will never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity'. But there is only two possible solutions (if excluding the extremes entirely) - a separate states solution, and 'a one country for two nations' solution. Something tells me, the former one is preferable for Israel.

Depends which Israeli you are talking to. Do you see the problems with the "one state solution", for the Jewish people?

 

[Shusha]

Their scrap their maximal ideas, recognize Israel and establish cooperational relations with it.

That seems less of a compromise than the basic expectation. Both sides give up their maximal ideas, both sides recognize the other, both sides establish cooperation with the other. Where is the compromise for the Arabs?

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

After the military defeat of the native people they resign themselves to life in the racial enclaves imposed by the supremacist state. Just visit any indian reservation to see an example of what I'm saying first hand.

The problem is that the level of violence required to defeat the palestinian people would lead to a complete international delegitimization of the jewish racial dictatorship.

No one is requiring any American Indians to live on Indian Reservations. Staying on them is their choice and as they have chosen to stay on them, the US government has granted them a great deal of autonomy. They have their own police forces, their own courts and their own schools. This is what they expressed that they wanted. The reason for wanting to stay on the Reservations was so that they could keep a sense of cultural unity by preserving those things that were central to their culture, such as language and traditions. At any time, they can leave and work anywhere in the nation they want.

 

[ESay]

Not sure how you are interpreting that second sentence

That it couldn't have been implemented. (If the two parties had agreed with this plan).

Depends which Israeli you are talking to. Do you see the problems with the "one state solution", for the Jewish people?

No problems at all, if you have a 'workable' idea of what to do with all Arabs there.

 

[ESay]

That seems less of a compromise than the basic expectation. Both sides give up their maximal ideas, both sides recognize the other, both sides establish cooperation with the other. Where is the compromise for the Arabs?

I already told you. The Arabs get their state, reject additional territorial claims, good relations and cooperation with Israel. I think it is far from 'basic expectations'.

 

[Shusha]

I already told you. The Arabs get their state, reject additional territorial claims, good relations and cooperation with Israel. I think it is far from 'basic expectations'.

You said that both sides had to compromise. What is the Arab compromise?

Arabs get a state. The Jews get (have) a state. Equal, so not a compromise.
Arabs get good relations and cooperation with Israel. Equal, so not a compromise.
Arabs get some territory. Jews get some territory. Equal, so not a compromise.

Where is the Arab compromise?

Let me give you some ideas:

Arabs/Muslims are really shitty at sharing even "shared" holy sites. Even shittier at refraining from using holy sites to wage violence. The Old City, the Temple Mount, the Tomb of the Patriarchs. Those sites would be better for everyone if under Israeli control. That gives something of value for the Arabs, without losing anything of value for the Arabs.

Ethnic cleansing is abhorrent, no matter which side you are on. A future Palestine should be inclusive of some portion of the population being Jewish. The Jewish residents, should they choose to stay, should not be forcibly removed. Again, value for the Arabs, without losing anything of value.

Alternatively to above, should the very idea of Jews living in Palestine be unthinkable, the compromise will have to come in some form of exchange of territory.

The "right of return" (not an actual right in international law) must be limited to a right to return to Palestine, and not one to return to Israel. Just as the right of return for Jews would be a right to return to Israel, but not to Palestine.


*Fair is fair. Feel free to give me a list of Jewish compromises.

**It occurs to me that we might want to differentiate between "compromise" (reciprocal modification of demands) and "concession" (conceding or yielding).