Is it Possible for Israel and Palestine to Peacefully Coexist?

[ShahdagMountains]

Agree, she may well be the most decent character in their camp

What do you mean by “their camp”?

 

[José]

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.

LUCKYDUCK01!​

I couldn't have said it better myself!!

Any Mescalero can leave their reservation in New Mexico and go live in Manhattan if he can afford it.

Palestinians on the other hand are still subjected to the shoot to kill police established by Ben Gurion as early as February 1948 meaning that any palestinian trying to move from Khan Yunis or Hebron to Ashkhelon risk jail at best or a bullet in the head at worst.

Thanks for pointing out the fact that unlike Israel, 21st century America is no longer a racial dictatorship.

 

[ESay]

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).

I said this before, maybe not to you, and repeat this once again - the best way to keep/make Israel safe on a long-term basis is establishing good relations and cooperation with its neighbours and regional countries. To do that, Israel should agree on such a deal that can be presented as a healthy compromise for the both sides, something like a win-win solution in their representation.

You never said such a thing as 'might is right'. But you might not realize how this concept is intertwined, maybe not intentionally, in all your argumentation. Yes, as for now, Israel doesn't need to make any concessions. What for? Israel has a strong army, holds firmly 'occupied' territories, is able to seize the Mount anytime it wants, and can do in Gaza what it sees necessary, etc. It is in a position of a strongman now, what compromises? Might is right.

But can the tide turn? A rhetorical question, really. For how long their army will have a great technological advance in comparison with their neighbors? For how long they will have 'a big brother' far overseas that will come at their help any time? Who knows. But what I know is unless they find any meaningful solution with their neighbors, this war and recent attack on Israel won't be the last ones. Israel can push its security zones whatever wide - South Lebanon, South Syria, the Gaza Strip, etc. - but they can't change one thing - their neighbours will be the same Arabs with the number of people wanting to revenge continually growing. It is their choice, after all.

 

[jwoodie]

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

Is there such a thing as Palestine? If so, what do you call the people who live there?

 

[San Souci]

Is there such a thing as Palestine? If so, what do you call the people who live there?

Camel Jockies.

 

[San Souci]

Is there such a thing as Palestine? If so, what do you call the people who live there?

PS-And there is not ,never was ,and never Will be ,a "Palestine". It was a name the British gave to their occupied land.

 

[Shusha]

I said this before, maybe not to you, and repeat this once again - the best way to keep/make Israel safe on a long-term basis is establishing good relations and cooperation with its neighbours and regional countries. To do that, Israel should agree on such a deal that can be presented as a healthy compromise for the both sides, something like a win-win solution in their representation.

You never said such a thing as 'might is right'. But you might not realize how this concept is intertwined, maybe not intentionally, in all your argumentation. Yes, as for now, Israel doesn't need to make any concessions. What for? Israel has a strong army, holds firmly 'occupied' territories, is able to seize the Mount anytime it wants, and can do in Gaza what it sees necessary, etc. It is in a position of a strongman now, what compromises? Might is right.

But can the tide turn? A rhetorical question, really. For how long their army will have a great technological advance in comparison with their neighbors? For how long they will have 'a big brother' far overseas that will come at their help any time? Who knows. But what I know is unless they find any meaningful solution with their neighbors, this war and recent attack on Israel won't be the last ones. Israel can push its security zones whatever wide - South Lebanon, South Syria, the Gaza Strip, etc. - but they can't change one thing - their neighbours will be the same Arabs with the number of people wanting to revenge continually growing. It is their choice, after all.

I'm not sure if this is what you intended, but it sounds like you are saying there should be no compromises for the Arabs, they should get whatever they ask for, because if they don't get whatever they ask for, they will just keep murdering Jews.

Yes. That is what we've been hearing from the Arabs for a hundred years now.

 

[Shusha]

...To do that, Israel should agree on such a deal that can be presented as a healthy compromise for the both sides, something like a win-win solution in their representation.

How is the solution I presented NOT win-win?

 

[ESay]

I'm not sure if this is what you intended, but it sounds like you are saying there should be no compromises for the Arabs, they should get whatever they ask for, because if they don't get whatever they ask for, they will just keep murdering Jews.

Yes. That is what we've been hearing from the Arabs for a hundred years now.

The Arabs should give up on all of the Mandatory Palestine, and establish cooperational ties with Israel. And yes, stop murdering Jews.

 

[ESay]

How is the solution I presented NOT win-win?

Because it isn't acceptable for one of the sides.

 

[Shusha]

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.

Control over territory is not equivalent to having conquered territory.

Palestinians have no state

Arab Palestinians have been unable to emerge as a state. Why is that, do you think?

and few rights in comparison to citizens.

Yes, oddly enough /sarcasm people who are not citizens of a state have different rights compared to citizens of a state. We've been over this. You seem to be demanding a state for Palestine, while also demanding that Israel apply Israeli sovereignty over Palestine. These two things are mutually exclusive.

Arab Palestinians are not lacking any rights. They have the same rights that citizens of other countries have.

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.

I am arguing that. Abandoning a territory you have a sovereign claim to, and then defending your citizens against attacks from that territory is not equivalent to "conquering". At least not by my definition of the word.

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

Disagree, but leaving it as requested.

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.

By this argument, there are no such things as homelands or self-determination for indigenous peoples, there is just whoever is in control now.

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.

But where does that trust come from? If Israel has been in control of holy sites for 75 years and has demonstrably provided equal access and cooperation, shouldn't that be a source of trust?

 

[Shusha]

Because it isn't acceptable for one of the sides.

Is there a possibility that one of the sides is being unreasonable in its demands? And thus giving up a win-win solution?

 

[Shusha]

The Arabs should give up on all of the Mandatory Palestine, and establish cooperational ties with Israel. And yes, stop murdering Jews.

And what do we do if they don't?

 

[ESay]

Is there a possibility that one of the sides is being unreasonable in its demands? And thus giving up a win-win solution?

The two sides should take their steps back.

 

[ESay]

And what do we do if they don't?

Well, don't know. Then the war for the sand will continue indefinitely.

 

[Moonglow]

Let those that are mighty enough control the land.

 

[San Souci]

The Arabs should give up on all of the Mandatory Palestine, and establish cooperational ties with Israel. And yes, stop murdering Jews.

True. Since "Palestine" was made up by the arch terrorist Yasser Arafat in 1961. There is no such place.

 

[Lisa558]

From river to sea from one side.

Ersatz Israel from the other.

Do you have any idea what ersatz means? Sounds like a Freudian slip that reveals your hate for the Jewish nation.

From the river to the sea: means wipe out Israel and kill all the Jews
Saying ersatz Isrsel means: Israel is inferior

Both are anti-Jew sentences.

 

[ShahdagMountains]

Go where?

Or do you mean “go Israel”!

 

[hondo 50]

Go where?

Or do you mean “go Israel”!

um, wut?