CDZ Israel and Palestine

[flacaltenn]

Is annexation and one state truly workable?

Its problematic....but then so is every other idea. It is however an approach that hasn't been as fully explored as others. I think on the West Bank front its more viable. On Gaza? Not so much.

Gaza tends to be more militant, the West Bank less so. Any two state solution is going to run into major problems because of Israel's insistence of making Jerusalem its capital, despite the fact that it sits in the center of territory that isn't its own. It would be like the US making Ottawa its capital. And canada saying otherwise.

Such an arrangement necessitates constant conflict as unless everyone visiting is airdropped, they would have to pass through non-israeli territory to get to their own capital. Tel Aviv makes more sense logistically. But the israeli's want Jerusalem.

Well, annex it. The territory and the entire west bank then becomes Israeli territory.Israel would love the territory. Its the source of most of the water used in the lower lands to the west. It includes Jerusalem and restores Israel to much of its Torah era boundaries.

The main issue is the people. Israel wants to maintain a 'uniquely Jewish character'. By annexing the territory they'd also have to annex the people. And that means many, many more Arab Israelis.

However......Arab Israelies are generally pretty peaceful. And Israel is going to have to do something about the people eventually. The longer it waits the more severe the issues will become. And have become.

By making them Arab Israelies with most rights, they remove much of the impetus of rebellion. You might even be able to get Arab financial support for Arab Israeli economic initiatives to improve the employment and education situation of west bank arabs.

Gaza....is a whole different ball of wax. But with Gaza they can literally quarenteen it. Not so much with the West Bank.

I admit, I haven't given serious thought to a one-state solution and have always supported 2 states but now that seems increasingly unlikely.

Questions though remain on rights because Israel wants to maintain it's "uniquely Jewish character" which is increasingly at odds with maintaining a secular government. You state "most rights" - what rights would they not have?

Similar limitations that exist for Arab-Israelies now: lacking access to the highest government offices. The PM for example would beyond them. But 99% of elected offices would be open.

Is annexation and one state truly workable?

Its problematic....but then so is every other idea. It is however an approach that hasn't been as fully explored as others. I think on the West Bank front its more viable. On Gaza? Not so much.

Gaza tends to be more militant, the West Bank less so. Any two state solution is going to run into major problems because of Israel's insistence of making Jerusalem its capital, despite the fact that it sits in the center of territory that isn't its own. It would be like the US making Ottawa its capital. And canada saying otherwise.

Such an arrangement necessitates constant conflict as unless everyone visiting is airdropped, they would have to pass through non-israeli territory to get to their own capital. Tel Aviv makes more sense logistically. But the israeli's want Jerusalem.

Well, annex it. The territory and the entire west bank then becomes Israeli territory.Israel would love the territory. Its the source of most of the water used in the lower lands to the west. It includes Jerusalem and restores Israel to much of its Torah era boundaries.

The main issue is the people. Israel wants to maintain a 'uniquely Jewish character'. By annexing the territory they'd also have to annex the people. And that means many, many more Arab Israelis.

However......Arab Israelies are generally pretty peaceful. And Israel is going to have to do something about the people eventually. The longer it waits the more severe the issues will become. And have become.

By making them Arab Israelies with most rights, they remove much of the impetus of rebellion. You might even be able to get Arab financial support for Arab Israeli economic initiatives to improve the employment and education situation of west bank arabs.

Gaza....is a whole different ball of wax. But with Gaza they can literally quarantine it. Not so much with the West Bank.

Jerusalem has always been the jewish capital. Jerusalem had no historical significance to so-called Palestinians until they wanted to make it an issue for a land grab.

name one other country that isn't allowed to maintain it's capital city. should new York be an international city because it's the financial center of the world?

New York doesn't have any religious value. Jeruselum (and Mecca and Medina) do. I don't know if it should be under international rule, but I don't think it should be their capital. Places like that are held under a stewardship for the future - not ownership. Riyadh is the Saudi capital, not Mecca.

Is annexation and one state truly workable?

Its problematic....but then so is every other idea. It is however an approach that hasn't been as fully explored as others. I think on the West Bank front its more viable. On Gaza? Not so much.

Gaza tends to be more militant, the West Bank less so. Any two state solution is going to run into major problems because of Israel's insistence of making Jerusalem its capital, despite the fact that it sits in the center of territory that isn't its own. It would be like the US making Ottawa its capital. And canada saying otherwise.

Such an arrangement necessitates constant conflict as unless everyone visiting is airdropped, they would have to pass through non-israeli territory to get to their own capital. Tel Aviv makes more sense logistically. But the israeli's want Jerusalem.

Well, annex it. The territory and the entire west bank then becomes Israeli territory.Israel would love the territory. Its the source of most of the water used in the lower lands to the west. It includes Jerusalem and restores Israel to much of its Torah era boundaries.

The main issue is the people. Israel wants to maintain a 'uniquely Jewish character'. By annexing the territory they'd also have to annex the people. And that means many, many more Arab Israelis.

However......Arab Israelies are generally pretty peaceful. And Israel is going to have to do something about the people eventually. The longer it waits the more severe the issues will become. And have become.

By making them Arab Israelies with most rights, they remove much of the impetus of rebellion. You might even be able to get Arab financial support for Arab Israeli economic initiatives to improve the employment and education situation of west bank arabs.

Gaza....is a whole different ball of wax. But with Gaza they can literally quarenteen it. Not so much with the West Bank.

I admit, I haven't given serious thought to a one-state solution and have always supported 2 states but now that seems increasingly unlikely.

Questions though remain on rights because Israel wants to maintain it's "uniquely Jewish character" which is increasingly at odds with maintaining a secular government. You state "most rights" - what rights would they not have?

I wouldn't sweat the "uniquely Jewish character" part too much. We have the same discussion here with folks about the "uniquely Christian character" of the USA. One reason that Israel never formalized a Constitution is that they suppressed this secular -- religious battle and moved beyond it. And the number of Arabs, Christians, in the Knesset shows that. I think you do the "2 state" solution and then work to NORMALIZE borders and green cards and migration so that eventually -- in 2340 -- it no longer matters.

Actually, I agree about the "Jewish character" - but there is substantial pushback from the ultra religious groups to increase the role of religion in governance that is at odds with the secular Israeli's. I don't think they have moved beyond it at all and that is problematic in a religious and ethnically pluralistic society.

Coyote --- recognize that it has almost ALWAYS been "ultra-Orthodox" religious Jews who were the biggest opponents of Zionism in the first place. Their belief is that building an Israel wrecks "God's plan" for the Jewish people. And they are patiently for God herself to form a "Jewish nation".. Those Israelis are NOT political in the least. These cats are at WAR with secularists (and other lesser observant Jews) all the time -- but would never give a spit to political notions. There MAY BE members of Knesset that are Orthodox, but the majority of them don't even RECOGNIZE the government of Israel as a valid entity..

Might be in the same boat as the Israeli Christian Palestinian. They are in the "Holy Land" as far as they are concerned --- and Israel isn't even on their map....

 

[Skylar]

Is annexation and one state truly workable?

Its problematic....but then so is every other idea. It is however an approach that hasn't been as fully explored as others. I think on the West Bank front its more viable. On Gaza? Not so much.

Gaza tends to be more militant, the West Bank less so. Any two state solution is going to run into major problems because of Israel's insistence of making Jerusalem its capital, despite the fact that it sits in the center of territory that isn't its own. It would be like the US making Ottawa its capital. And canada saying otherwise.

Such an arrangement necessitates constant conflict as unless everyone visiting is airdropped, they would have to pass through non-israeli territory to get to their own capital. Tel Aviv makes more sense logistically. But the israeli's want Jerusalem.

Well, annex it. The territory and the entire west bank then becomes Israeli territory.Israel would love the territory. Its the source of most of the water used in the lower lands to the west. It includes Jerusalem and restores Israel to much of its Torah era boundaries.

The main issue is the people. Israel wants to maintain a 'uniquely Jewish character'. By annexing the territory they'd also have to annex the people. And that means many, many more Arab Israelis.

However......Arab Israelies are generally pretty peaceful. And Israel is going to have to do something about the people eventually. The longer it waits the more severe the issues will become. And have become.

By making them Arab Israelies with most rights, they remove much of the impetus of rebellion. You might even be able to get Arab financial support for Arab Israeli economic initiatives to improve the employment and education situation of west bank arabs.

Gaza....is a whole different ball of wax. But with Gaza they can literally quarenteen it. Not so much with the West Bank.

I admit, I haven't given serious thought to a one-state solution and have always supported 2 states but now that seems increasingly unlikely.

Questions though remain on rights because Israel wants to maintain it's "uniquely Jewish character" which is increasingly at odds with maintaining a secular government. You state "most rights" - what rights would they not have?

I wouldn't sweat the "uniquely Jewish character" part too much. We have the same discussion here with folks about the "uniquely Christian character" of the USA. One reason that Israel never formalized a Constitution is that they suppressed this secular -- religious battle and moved beyond it. And the number of Arabs, Christians, in the Knesset shows that. I think you do the "2 state" solution and then work to NORMALIZE borders and green cards and migration so that eventually -- in 2340 -- it no longer matters.

The US Declaration of independence doesn't declare the US a 'Christian nation', nor does US law exclude those who aren't Christians from being President, nor does US naturalization law automatically grant citizenship to any Christian that arrives, nor there a cross in the US flag.

Israel did and does all these things, save 'Jewish' in place of 'Christian'. With the Israeli Supreme Court doubling down on religion rather than bloodline, insisting that the 'Law of Return' exists only for practicing jews. With the PM pushing for Israel to be declared a Jewish State.

These aren't trivial issues. Equating them to the United States' 'christian character' would be a mistake. And it doesn't fully appreciate how thorny this particular issue is. A full 3rd of the Knesset has already voted to recognize Israel as the Jewish Homeland as part of Israeli 'Basic Law'.

There are crosses on US state and city seals and we have cows over that. Ever been to Corpus Christi? And a "full 1/3" of the US congress would probably support some kind of watered-down Judean Christian heritage resolution.. Check this out ---- List of national flags depicting a cross - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And the US isn't among them. Israel's Flag is based on the Star of David. Their declaration of independence declares them a 'Jewish' nation. The have a 'law of return' of automatic citizenship......but only for Jews. And per their own supreme court, only practicing Jews. And access to the nation's highest offices is restricted to Jews only.

The issue is far more serious in Israel than it is in the US. And it plays a dramatic role in Israeli politics. Not only among the ultra religious. But among the secular as well. The Likud party and its not particularly religious Netanyahu. Many secular Jews are also powerful supporters the 'unique jewish character' of Israel and it plays prominent roles in their politics.

But that's not the point. That area is NOT us. Most Christians in the West Bank (80% IIRC) identify as Palestinian. And to make it MORE complicated -- those Christians have ARAB heritage.

The term 'Israeli Arab' doesn't refer to a religion. With rare exception these arabs don't practice Judiasm. Making them incompatible with the Jewish State idea.

And the influx of huge numbers of Arab Christians and Arab Muslims would impact this 'uniquely jewish character'. With this and security concerns being the largest impediments to the 1 state solution. As the most ardent opposition to such a plan would likely arise from Israeli Jews.

 

[Coyote]

Is annexation and one state truly workable?

Its problematic....but then so is every other idea. It is however an approach that hasn't been as fully explored as others. I think on the West Bank front its more viable. On Gaza? Not so much.

Gaza tends to be more militant, the West Bank less so. Any two state solution is going to run into major problems because of Israel's insistence of making Jerusalem its capital, despite the fact that it sits in the center of territory that isn't its own. It would be like the US making Ottawa its capital. And canada saying otherwise.

Such an arrangement necessitates constant conflict as unless everyone visiting is airdropped, they would have to pass through non-israeli territory to get to their own capital. Tel Aviv makes more sense logistically. But the israeli's want Jerusalem.

Well, annex it. The territory and the entire west bank then becomes Israeli territory.Israel would love the territory. Its the source of most of the water used in the lower lands to the west. It includes Jerusalem and restores Israel to much of its Torah era boundaries.

The main issue is the people. Israel wants to maintain a 'uniquely Jewish character'. By annexing the territory they'd also have to annex the people. And that means many, many more Arab Israelis.

However......Arab Israelies are generally pretty peaceful. And Israel is going to have to do something about the people eventually. The longer it waits the more severe the issues will become. And have become.

By making them Arab Israelies with most rights, they remove much of the impetus of rebellion. You might even be able to get Arab financial support for Arab Israeli economic initiatives to improve the employment and education situation of west bank arabs.

Gaza....is a whole different ball of wax. But with Gaza they can literally quarenteen it. Not so much with the West Bank.

I admit, I haven't given serious thought to a one-state solution and have always supported 2 states but now that seems increasingly unlikely.

Questions though remain on rights because Israel wants to maintain it's "uniquely Jewish character" which is increasingly at odds with maintaining a secular government. You state "most rights" - what rights would they not have?

Similar limitations that exist for Arab-Israelies now: lacking access to the highest government offices. The PM for example would beyond them. But 99% of elected offices would be open.

Is annexation and one state truly workable?

Its problematic....but then so is every other idea. It is however an approach that hasn't been as fully explored as others. I think on the West Bank front its more viable. On Gaza? Not so much.

Gaza tends to be more militant, the West Bank less so. Any two state solution is going to run into major problems because of Israel's insistence of making Jerusalem its capital, despite the fact that it sits in the center of territory that isn't its own. It would be like the US making Ottawa its capital. And canada saying otherwise.

Such an arrangement necessitates constant conflict as unless everyone visiting is airdropped, they would have to pass through non-israeli territory to get to their own capital. Tel Aviv makes more sense logistically. But the israeli's want Jerusalem.

Well, annex it. The territory and the entire west bank then becomes Israeli territory.Israel would love the territory. Its the source of most of the water used in the lower lands to the west. It includes Jerusalem and restores Israel to much of its Torah era boundaries.

The main issue is the people. Israel wants to maintain a 'uniquely Jewish character'. By annexing the territory they'd also have to annex the people. And that means many, many more Arab Israelis.

However......Arab Israelies are generally pretty peaceful. And Israel is going to have to do something about the people eventually. The longer it waits the more severe the issues will become. And have become.

By making them Arab Israelies with most rights, they remove much of the impetus of rebellion. You might even be able to get Arab financial support for Arab Israeli economic initiatives to improve the employment and education situation of west bank arabs.

Gaza....is a whole different ball of wax. But with Gaza they can literally quarantine it. Not so much with the West Bank.

Jerusalem has always been the jewish capital. Jerusalem had no historical significance to so-called Palestinians until they wanted to make it an issue for a land grab.

name one other country that isn't allowed to maintain it's capital city. should new York be an international city because it's the financial center of the world?

New York doesn't have any religious value. Jeruselum (and Mecca and Medina) do. I don't know if it should be under international rule, but I don't think it should be their capital. Places like that are held under a stewardship for the future - not ownership. Riyadh is the Saudi capital, not Mecca.

Is annexation and one state truly workable?

Its problematic....but then so is every other idea. It is however an approach that hasn't been as fully explored as others. I think on the West Bank front its more viable. On Gaza? Not so much.

Gaza tends to be more militant, the West Bank less so. Any two state solution is going to run into major problems because of Israel's insistence of making Jerusalem its capital, despite the fact that it sits in the center of territory that isn't its own. It would be like the US making Ottawa its capital. And canada saying otherwise.

Such an arrangement necessitates constant conflict as unless everyone visiting is airdropped, they would have to pass through non-israeli territory to get to their own capital. Tel Aviv makes more sense logistically. But the israeli's want Jerusalem.

Well, annex it. The territory and the entire west bank then becomes Israeli territory.Israel would love the territory. Its the source of most of the water used in the lower lands to the west. It includes Jerusalem and restores Israel to much of its Torah era boundaries.

The main issue is the people. Israel wants to maintain a 'uniquely Jewish character'. By annexing the territory they'd also have to annex the people. And that means many, many more Arab Israelis.

However......Arab Israelies are generally pretty peaceful. And Israel is going to have to do something about the people eventually. The longer it waits the more severe the issues will become. And have become.

By making them Arab Israelies with most rights, they remove much of the impetus of rebellion. You might even be able to get Arab financial support for Arab Israeli economic initiatives to improve the employment and education situation of west bank arabs.

Gaza....is a whole different ball of wax. But with Gaza they can literally quarenteen it. Not so much with the West Bank.

I admit, I haven't given serious thought to a one-state solution and have always supported 2 states but now that seems increasingly unlikely.

Questions though remain on rights because Israel wants to maintain it's "uniquely Jewish character" which is increasingly at odds with maintaining a secular government. You state "most rights" - what rights would they not have?

I wouldn't sweat the "uniquely Jewish character" part too much. We have the same discussion here with folks about the "uniquely Christian character" of the USA. One reason that Israel never formalized a Constitution is that they suppressed this secular -- religious battle and moved beyond it. And the number of Arabs, Christians, in the Knesset shows that. I think you do the "2 state" solution and then work to NORMALIZE borders and green cards and migration so that eventually -- in 2340 -- it no longer matters.

Actually, I agree about the "Jewish character" - but there is substantial pushback from the ultra religious groups to increase the role of religion in governance that is at odds with the secular Israeli's. I don't think they have moved beyond it at all and that is problematic in a religious and ethnically pluralistic society.

Coyote --- recognize that it has almost ALWAYS been "ultra-Orthodox" religious Jews who were the biggest opponents of Zionism in the first place. Their belief is that building an Israel wrecks "God's plan" for the Jewish people. And they are patiently for God herself to form a "Jewish nation".. Those Israelis are NOT political in the least. These cats are at WAR with secularists (and other lesser observant Jews) all the time -- but would never give a spit to political notions. There MAY BE members of Knesset that are Orthodox, but the majority of them don't even RECOGNIZE the government of Israel as a valid entity..

Might be in the same boat as the Israeli Christian Palestinian. They are in the "Holy Land" as far as they are concerned --- and Israel isn't even on their map....

Where then is the push to increase the role of religion, it's there - for example, the schism over the bill to declare Israel a Jewish State where only Jews have national rights.

 

[irosie91]

Is annexation and one state truly workable?

Its problematic....but then so is every other idea. It is however an approach that hasn't been as fully explored as others. I think on the West Bank front its more viable. On Gaza? Not so much.

Gaza tends to be more militant, the West Bank less so. Any two state solution is going to run into major problems because of Israel's insistence of making Jerusalem its capital, despite the fact that it sits in the center of territory that isn't its own. It would be like the US making Ottawa its capital. And canada saying otherwise.

Such an arrangement necessitates constant conflict as unless everyone visiting is airdropped, they would have to pass through non-israeli territory to get to their own capital. Tel Aviv makes more sense logistically. But the israeli's want Jerusalem.

Well, annex it. The territory and the entire west bank then becomes Israeli territory.Israel would love the territory. Its the source of most of the water used in the lower lands to the west. It includes Jerusalem and restores Israel to much of its Torah era boundaries.

The main issue is the people. Israel wants to maintain a 'uniquely Jewish character'. By annexing the territory they'd also have to annex the people. And that means many, many more Arab Israelis.

However......Arab Israelies are generally pretty peaceful. And Israel is going to have to do something about the people eventually. The longer it waits the more severe the issues will become. And have become.

By making them Arab Israelies with most rights, they remove much of the impetus of rebellion. You might even be able to get Arab financial support for Arab Israeli economic initiatives to improve the employment and education situation of west bank arabs.

Gaza....is a whole different ball of wax. But with Gaza they can literally quarenteen it. Not so much with the West Bank.

I admit, I haven't given serious thought to a one-state solution and have always supported 2 states but now that seems increasingly unlikely.

Questions though remain on rights because Israel wants to maintain it's "uniquely Jewish character" which is increasingly at odds with maintaining a secular government. You state "most rights" - what rights would they not have?

Similar limitations that exist for Arab-Israelies now: lacking access to the highest government offices. The PM for example would beyond them. But 99% of elected offices would be open.

Is annexation and one state truly workable?

Its problematic....but then so is every other idea. It is however an approach that hasn't been as fully explored as others. I think on the West Bank front its more viable. On Gaza? Not so much.

Gaza tends to be more militant, the West Bank less so. Any two state solution is going to run into major problems because of Israel's insistence of making Jerusalem its capital, despite the fact that it sits in the center of territory that isn't its own. It would be like the US making Ottawa its capital. And canada saying otherwise.

Such an arrangement necessitates constant conflict as unless everyone visiting is airdropped, they would have to pass through non-israeli territory to get to their own capital. Tel Aviv makes more sense logistically. But the israeli's want Jerusalem.

Well, annex it. The territory and the entire west bank then becomes Israeli territory.Israel would love the territory. Its the source of most of the water used in the lower lands to the west. It includes Jerusalem and restores Israel to much of its Torah era boundaries.

The main issue is the people. Israel wants to maintain a 'uniquely Jewish character'. By annexing the territory they'd also have to annex the people. And that means many, many more Arab Israelis.

However......Arab Israelies are generally pretty peaceful. And Israel is going to have to do something about the people eventually. The longer it waits the more severe the issues will become. And have become.

By making them Arab Israelies with most rights, they remove much of the impetus of rebellion. You might even be able to get Arab financial support for Arab Israeli economic initiatives to improve the employment and education situation of west bank arabs.

Gaza....is a whole different ball of wax. But with Gaza they can literally quarantine it. Not so much with the West Bank.

Jerusalem has always been the jewish capital. Jerusalem had no historical significance to so-called Palestinians until they wanted to make it an issue for a land grab.

name one other country that isn't allowed to maintain it's capital city. should new York be an international city because it's the financial center of the world?

New York doesn't have any religious value. Jeruselum (and Mecca and Medina) do. I don't know if it should be under international rule, but I don't think it should be their capital. Places like that are held under a stewardship for the future - not ownership. Riyadh is the Saudi capital, not Mecca.

Is annexation and one state truly workable?

Its problematic....but then so is every other idea. It is however an approach that hasn't been as fully explored as others. I think on the West Bank front its more viable. On Gaza? Not so much.

Gaza tends to be more militant, the West Bank less so. Any two state solution is going to run into major problems because of Israel's insistence of making Jerusalem its capital, despite the fact that it sits in the center of territory that isn't its own. It would be like the US making Ottawa its capital. And canada saying otherwise.

Such an arrangement necessitates constant conflict as unless everyone visiting is airdropped, they would have to pass through non-israeli territory to get to their own capital. Tel Aviv makes more sense logistically. But the israeli's want Jerusalem.

Well, annex it. The territory and the entire west bank then becomes Israeli territory.Israel would love the territory. Its the source of most of the water used in the lower lands to the west. It includes Jerusalem and restores Israel to much of its Torah era boundaries.

The main issue is the people. Israel wants to maintain a 'uniquely Jewish character'. By annexing the territory they'd also have to annex the people. And that means many, many more Arab Israelis.

However......Arab Israelies are generally pretty peaceful. And Israel is going to have to do something about the people eventually. The longer it waits the more severe the issues will become. And have become.

By making them Arab Israelies with most rights, they remove much of the impetus of rebellion. You might even be able to get Arab financial support for Arab Israeli economic initiatives to improve the employment and education situation of west bank arabs.

Gaza....is a whole different ball of wax. But with Gaza they can literally quarenteen it. Not so much with the West Bank.

I admit, I haven't given serious thought to a one-state solution and have always supported 2 states but now that seems increasingly unlikely.

Questions though remain on rights because Israel wants to maintain it's "uniquely Jewish character" which is increasingly at odds with maintaining a secular government. You state "most rights" - what rights would they not have?

I wouldn't sweat the "uniquely Jewish character" part too much. We have the same discussion here with folks about the "uniquely Christian character" of the USA. One reason that Israel never formalized a Constitution is that they suppressed this secular -- religious battle and moved beyond it. And the number of Arabs, Christians, in the Knesset shows that. I think you do the "2 state" solution and then work to NORMALIZE borders and green cards and migration so that eventually -- in 2340 -- it no longer matters.

Actually, I agree about the "Jewish character" - but there is substantial pushback from the ultra religious groups to increase the role of religion in governance that is at odds with the secular Israeli's. I don't think they have moved beyond it at all and that is problematic in a religious and ethnically pluralistic society.

Coyote --- recognize that it has almost ALWAYS been "ultra-Orthodox" religious Jews who were the biggest opponents of Zionism in the first place. Their belief is that building an Israel wrecks "God's plan" for the Jewish people. And they are patiently for God herself to form a "Jewish nation".. Those Israelis are NOT political in the least. These cats are at WAR with secularists (and other lesser observant Jews) all the time -- but would never give a spit to political notions. There MAY BE members of Knesset that are Orthodox, but the majority of them don't even RECOGNIZE the government of Israel as a valid entity..

Might be in the same boat as the Israeli Christian Palestinian. They are in the "Holy Land" as far as they are concerned --- and Israel isn't even on their map....

you are a little confused FLACAL---- Most orthodox jews are ZIONIST JEWS----
the group to which you refer -----the politically anti Zionist are a small minority of
the Orthodox set. They are just a persistent pain in the ass because they did
manage to grab a KIND of political power. They, themselves, grossly exaggerate
their numbers and their power and might and overwhelming righteousness--but on
a personal level they are utterly harmless-----they also live in parts of the USA.
I have spent some time in my life living in their neighborhood (oy)

 

[flacaltenn]

Its problematic....but then so is every other idea. It is however an approach that hasn't been as fully explored as others. I think on the West Bank front its more viable. On Gaza? Not so much.

Gaza tends to be more militant, the West Bank less so. Any two state solution is going to run into major problems because of Israel's insistence of making Jerusalem its capital, despite the fact that it sits in the center of territory that isn't its own. It would be like the US making Ottawa its capital. And canada saying otherwise.

Such an arrangement necessitates constant conflict as unless everyone visiting is airdropped, they would have to pass through non-israeli territory to get to their own capital. Tel Aviv makes more sense logistically. But the israeli's want Jerusalem.

Well, annex it. The territory and the entire west bank then becomes Israeli territory.Israel would love the territory. Its the source of most of the water used in the lower lands to the west. It includes Jerusalem and restores Israel to much of its Torah era boundaries.

The main issue is the people. Israel wants to maintain a 'uniquely Jewish character'. By annexing the territory they'd also have to annex the people. And that means many, many more Arab Israelis.

However......Arab Israelies are generally pretty peaceful. And Israel is going to have to do something about the people eventually. The longer it waits the more severe the issues will become. And have become.

By making them Arab Israelies with most rights, they remove much of the impetus of rebellion. You might even be able to get Arab financial support for Arab Israeli economic initiatives to improve the employment and education situation of west bank arabs.

Gaza....is a whole different ball of wax. But with Gaza they can literally quarenteen it. Not so much with the West Bank.

I admit, I haven't given serious thought to a one-state solution and have always supported 2 states but now that seems increasingly unlikely.

Questions though remain on rights because Israel wants to maintain it's "uniquely Jewish character" which is increasingly at odds with maintaining a secular government. You state "most rights" - what rights would they not have?

I wouldn't sweat the "uniquely Jewish character" part too much. We have the same discussion here with folks about the "uniquely Christian character" of the USA. One reason that Israel never formalized a Constitution is that they suppressed this secular -- religious battle and moved beyond it. And the number of Arabs, Christians, in the Knesset shows that. I think you do the "2 state" solution and then work to NORMALIZE borders and green cards and migration so that eventually -- in 2340 -- it no longer matters.

The US Declaration of independence doesn't declare the US a 'Christian nation', nor does US law exclude those who aren't Christians from being President, nor does US naturalization law automatically grant citizenship to any Christian that arrives, nor there a cross in the US flag.

Israel did and does all these things, save 'Jewish' in place of 'Christian'. With the Israeli Supreme Court doubling down on religion rather than bloodline, insisting that the 'Law of Return' exists only for practicing jews. With the PM pushing for Israel to be declared a Jewish State.

These aren't trivial issues. Equating them to the United States' 'christian character' would be a mistake. And it doesn't fully appreciate how thorny this particular issue is. A full 3rd of the Knesset has already voted to recognize Israel as the Jewish Homeland as part of Israeli 'Basic Law'.

There are crosses on US state and city seals and we have cows over that. Ever been to Corpus Christi? And a "full 1/3" of the US congress would probably support some kind of watered-down Judean Christian heritage resolution.. Check this out ---- List of national flags depicting a cross - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And the US isn't among them. Israel's Flag is based on the Star of David. Their declaration of independence declares them a 'Jewish' nation. The have a 'law of return' of automatic citizenship......but only for Jews. And per their own supreme court, only practicing Jews. And access to the nation's highest offices is restricted to Jews only.

The issue is far more serious in Israel than it is in the US. And it plays a dramatic role in Israeli politics. Not only among the ultra religious. But among the secular as well. The Likud party and its not particularly religious Netanyahu. Many secular Jews are also powerful supporters the 'unique jewish character' of Israel and it plays prominent roles in their politics.

But that's not the point. That area is NOT us. Most Christians in the West Bank (80% IIRC) identify as Palestinian. And to make it MORE complicated -- those Christians have ARAB heritage.

The term 'Israeli Arab' doesn't refer to a religion. With rare exception these arabs don't practice Judiasm. Making them incompatible with the Jewish State idea.

And the influx of huge numbers of Arab Christians and Arab Muslims would impact this 'uniquely jewish character'. With this and security concerns being the largest impediments to the 1 state solution. As the most ardent opposition to such a plan would likely arise from Israeli Jews.

Look -- OK --- You win. There IS a star of David on the Israeli flag. And Israel is never gonna grant citizenship and "right of return" to any yahoo on the planet that calls themselves a Palestinian. Largely not an issue because the number of Palis that would accept Israeli citizenship is in the single digits.

Israel has offered citizenship to Christian Palestinians in exchange for national service and hasn't got much traction. SO --- "right of return" is NOT an immigration policy. And immigration policy is a political decision not a "feature" of the Israel founding documents. As witnessed by any number of articles you can find in Ha'Aretz newspaper in a month criticizing Netanyanhu for his policy on african migration..

If the Palestinians are to be an official nation-state -- they need to have an autonomous region. And the ancestral home is more in the hills of the West Bank than in Tel Aviv..

Most all of the early Israeli settlements in Israel proper were BOUGHT from Palestinians who gave up their "right of return"..

 

[flacaltenn]

Its problematic....but then so is every other idea. It is however an approach that hasn't been as fully explored as others. I think on the West Bank front its more viable. On Gaza? Not so much.

Gaza tends to be more militant, the West Bank less so. Any two state solution is going to run into major problems because of Israel's insistence of making Jerusalem its capital, despite the fact that it sits in the center of territory that isn't its own. It would be like the US making Ottawa its capital. And canada saying otherwise.

Such an arrangement necessitates constant conflict as unless everyone visiting is airdropped, they would have to pass through non-israeli territory to get to their own capital. Tel Aviv makes more sense logistically. But the israeli's want Jerusalem.

Well, annex it. The territory and the entire west bank then becomes Israeli territory.Israel would love the territory. Its the source of most of the water used in the lower lands to the west. It includes Jerusalem and restores Israel to much of its Torah era boundaries.

The main issue is the people. Israel wants to maintain a 'uniquely Jewish character'. By annexing the territory they'd also have to annex the people. And that means many, many more Arab Israelis.

However......Arab Israelies are generally pretty peaceful. And Israel is going to have to do something about the people eventually. The longer it waits the more severe the issues will become. And have become.

By making them Arab Israelies with most rights, they remove much of the impetus of rebellion. You might even be able to get Arab financial support for Arab Israeli economic initiatives to improve the employment and education situation of west bank arabs.

Gaza....is a whole different ball of wax. But with Gaza they can literally quarenteen it. Not so much with the West Bank.

I admit, I haven't given serious thought to a one-state solution and have always supported 2 states but now that seems increasingly unlikely.

Questions though remain on rights because Israel wants to maintain it's "uniquely Jewish character" which is increasingly at odds with maintaining a secular government. You state "most rights" - what rights would they not have?

Similar limitations that exist for Arab-Israelies now: lacking access to the highest government offices. The PM for example would beyond them. But 99% of elected offices would be open.

Is annexation and one state truly workable?

Its problematic....but then so is every other idea. It is however an approach that hasn't been as fully explored as others. I think on the West Bank front its more viable. On Gaza? Not so much.

Gaza tends to be more militant, the West Bank less so. Any two state solution is going to run into major problems because of Israel's insistence of making Jerusalem its capital, despite the fact that it sits in the center of territory that isn't its own. It would be like the US making Ottawa its capital. And canada saying otherwise.

Such an arrangement necessitates constant conflict as unless everyone visiting is airdropped, they would have to pass through non-israeli territory to get to their own capital. Tel Aviv makes more sense logistically. But the israeli's want Jerusalem.

Well, annex it. The territory and the entire west bank then becomes Israeli territory.Israel would love the territory. Its the source of most of the water used in the lower lands to the west. It includes Jerusalem and restores Israel to much of its Torah era boundaries.

The main issue is the people. Israel wants to maintain a 'uniquely Jewish character'. By annexing the territory they'd also have to annex the people. And that means many, many more Arab Israelis.

However......Arab Israelies are generally pretty peaceful. And Israel is going to have to do something about the people eventually. The longer it waits the more severe the issues will become. And have become.

By making them Arab Israelies with most rights, they remove much of the impetus of rebellion. You might even be able to get Arab financial support for Arab Israeli economic initiatives to improve the employment and education situation of west bank arabs.

Gaza....is a whole different ball of wax. But with Gaza they can literally quarantine it. Not so much with the West Bank.

Jerusalem has always been the jewish capital. Jerusalem had no historical significance to so-called Palestinians until they wanted to make it an issue for a land grab.

name one other country that isn't allowed to maintain it's capital city. should new York be an international city because it's the financial center of the world?

New York doesn't have any religious value. Jeruselum (and Mecca and Medina) do. I don't know if it should be under international rule, but I don't think it should be their capital. Places like that are held under a stewardship for the future - not ownership. Riyadh is the Saudi capital, not Mecca.

Its problematic....but then so is every other idea. It is however an approach that hasn't been as fully explored as others. I think on the West Bank front its more viable. On Gaza? Not so much.

Gaza tends to be more militant, the West Bank less so. Any two state solution is going to run into major problems because of Israel's insistence of making Jerusalem its capital, despite the fact that it sits in the center of territory that isn't its own. It would be like the US making Ottawa its capital. And canada saying otherwise.

Such an arrangement necessitates constant conflict as unless everyone visiting is airdropped, they would have to pass through non-israeli territory to get to their own capital. Tel Aviv makes more sense logistically. But the israeli's want Jerusalem.

Well, annex it. The territory and the entire west bank then becomes Israeli territory.Israel would love the territory. Its the source of most of the water used in the lower lands to the west. It includes Jerusalem and restores Israel to much of its Torah era boundaries.

The main issue is the people. Israel wants to maintain a 'uniquely Jewish character'. By annexing the territory they'd also have to annex the people. And that means many, many more Arab Israelis.

However......Arab Israelies are generally pretty peaceful. And Israel is going to have to do something about the people eventually. The longer it waits the more severe the issues will become. And have become.

By making them Arab Israelies with most rights, they remove much of the impetus of rebellion. You might even be able to get Arab financial support for Arab Israeli economic initiatives to improve the employment and education situation of west bank arabs.

Gaza....is a whole different ball of wax. But with Gaza they can literally quarenteen it. Not so much with the West Bank.

I admit, I haven't given serious thought to a one-state solution and have always supported 2 states but now that seems increasingly unlikely.

Questions though remain on rights because Israel wants to maintain it's "uniquely Jewish character" which is increasingly at odds with maintaining a secular government. You state "most rights" - what rights would they not have?

I wouldn't sweat the "uniquely Jewish character" part too much. We have the same discussion here with folks about the "uniquely Christian character" of the USA. One reason that Israel never formalized a Constitution is that they suppressed this secular -- religious battle and moved beyond it. And the number of Arabs, Christians, in the Knesset shows that. I think you do the "2 state" solution and then work to NORMALIZE borders and green cards and migration so that eventually -- in 2340 -- it no longer matters.

Actually, I agree about the "Jewish character" - but there is substantial pushback from the ultra religious groups to increase the role of religion in governance that is at odds with the secular Israeli's. I don't think they have moved beyond it at all and that is problematic in a religious and ethnically pluralistic society.

Coyote --- recognize that it has almost ALWAYS been "ultra-Orthodox" religious Jews who were the biggest opponents of Zionism in the first place. Their belief is that building an Israel wrecks "God's plan" for the Jewish people. And they are patiently for God herself to form a "Jewish nation".. Those Israelis are NOT political in the least. These cats are at WAR with secularists (and other lesser observant Jews) all the time -- but would never give a spit to political notions. There MAY BE members of Knesset that are Orthodox, but the majority of them don't even RECOGNIZE the government of Israel as a valid entity..

Might be in the same boat as the Israeli Christian Palestinian. They are in the "Holy Land" as far as they are concerned --- and Israel isn't even on their map....

Where then is the push to increase the role of religion, it's there - for example, the schism over the bill to declare Israel a Jewish State where only Jews have national rights.

Show me the popular support for doing something that erratic. Half the influential folks in the cities would be in an uproar about something like.

 

[flacaltenn]

Its problematic....but then so is every other idea. It is however an approach that hasn't been as fully explored as others. I think on the West Bank front its more viable. On Gaza? Not so much.

Gaza tends to be more militant, the West Bank less so. Any two state solution is going to run into major problems because of Israel's insistence of making Jerusalem its capital, despite the fact that it sits in the center of territory that isn't its own. It would be like the US making Ottawa its capital. And canada saying otherwise.

Such an arrangement necessitates constant conflict as unless everyone visiting is airdropped, they would have to pass through non-israeli territory to get to their own capital. Tel Aviv makes more sense logistically. But the israeli's want Jerusalem.

Well, annex it. The territory and the entire west bank then becomes Israeli territory.Israel would love the territory. Its the source of most of the water used in the lower lands to the west. It includes Jerusalem and restores Israel to much of its Torah era boundaries.

The main issue is the people. Israel wants to maintain a 'uniquely Jewish character'. By annexing the territory they'd also have to annex the people. And that means many, many more Arab Israelis.

However......Arab Israelies are generally pretty peaceful. And Israel is going to have to do something about the people eventually. The longer it waits the more severe the issues will become. And have become.

By making them Arab Israelies with most rights, they remove much of the impetus of rebellion. You might even be able to get Arab financial support for Arab Israeli economic initiatives to improve the employment and education situation of west bank arabs.

Gaza....is a whole different ball of wax. But with Gaza they can literally quarenteen it. Not so much with the West Bank.

I admit, I haven't given serious thought to a one-state solution and have always supported 2 states but now that seems increasingly unlikely.

Questions though remain on rights because Israel wants to maintain it's "uniquely Jewish character" which is increasingly at odds with maintaining a secular government. You state "most rights" - what rights would they not have?

Similar limitations that exist for Arab-Israelies now: lacking access to the highest government offices. The PM for example would beyond them. But 99% of elected offices would be open.

Is annexation and one state truly workable?

Its problematic....but then so is every other idea. It is however an approach that hasn't been as fully explored as others. I think on the West Bank front its more viable. On Gaza? Not so much.

Gaza tends to be more militant, the West Bank less so. Any two state solution is going to run into major problems because of Israel's insistence of making Jerusalem its capital, despite the fact that it sits in the center of territory that isn't its own. It would be like the US making Ottawa its capital. And canada saying otherwise.

Such an arrangement necessitates constant conflict as unless everyone visiting is airdropped, they would have to pass through non-israeli territory to get to their own capital. Tel Aviv makes more sense logistically. But the israeli's want Jerusalem.

Well, annex it. The territory and the entire west bank then becomes Israeli territory.Israel would love the territory. Its the source of most of the water used in the lower lands to the west. It includes Jerusalem and restores Israel to much of its Torah era boundaries.

The main issue is the people. Israel wants to maintain a 'uniquely Jewish character'. By annexing the territory they'd also have to annex the people. And that means many, many more Arab Israelis.

However......Arab Israelies are generally pretty peaceful. And Israel is going to have to do something about the people eventually. The longer it waits the more severe the issues will become. And have become.

By making them Arab Israelies with most rights, they remove much of the impetus of rebellion. You might even be able to get Arab financial support for Arab Israeli economic initiatives to improve the employment and education situation of west bank arabs.

Gaza....is a whole different ball of wax. But with Gaza they can literally quarantine it. Not so much with the West Bank.

Jerusalem has always been the jewish capital. Jerusalem had no historical significance to so-called Palestinians until they wanted to make it an issue for a land grab.

name one other country that isn't allowed to maintain it's capital city. should new York be an international city because it's the financial center of the world?

New York doesn't have any religious value. Jeruselum (and Mecca and Medina) do. I don't know if it should be under international rule, but I don't think it should be their capital. Places like that are held under a stewardship for the future - not ownership. Riyadh is the Saudi capital, not Mecca.

Its problematic....but then so is every other idea. It is however an approach that hasn't been as fully explored as others. I think on the West Bank front its more viable. On Gaza? Not so much.

Gaza tends to be more militant, the West Bank less so. Any two state solution is going to run into major problems because of Israel's insistence of making Jerusalem its capital, despite the fact that it sits in the center of territory that isn't its own. It would be like the US making Ottawa its capital. And canada saying otherwise.

Such an arrangement necessitates constant conflict as unless everyone visiting is airdropped, they would have to pass through non-israeli territory to get to their own capital. Tel Aviv makes more sense logistically. But the israeli's want Jerusalem.

Well, annex it. The territory and the entire west bank then becomes Israeli territory.Israel would love the territory. Its the source of most of the water used in the lower lands to the west. It includes Jerusalem and restores Israel to much of its Torah era boundaries.

The main issue is the people. Israel wants to maintain a 'uniquely Jewish character'. By annexing the territory they'd also have to annex the people. And that means many, many more Arab Israelis.

However......Arab Israelies are generally pretty peaceful. And Israel is going to have to do something about the people eventually. The longer it waits the more severe the issues will become. And have become.

By making them Arab Israelies with most rights, they remove much of the impetus of rebellion. You might even be able to get Arab financial support for Arab Israeli economic initiatives to improve the employment and education situation of west bank arabs.

Gaza....is a whole different ball of wax. But with Gaza they can literally quarenteen it. Not so much with the West Bank.

I admit, I haven't given serious thought to a one-state solution and have always supported 2 states but now that seems increasingly unlikely.

Questions though remain on rights because Israel wants to maintain it's "uniquely Jewish character" which is increasingly at odds with maintaining a secular government. You state "most rights" - what rights would they not have?

I wouldn't sweat the "uniquely Jewish character" part too much. We have the same discussion here with folks about the "uniquely Christian character" of the USA. One reason that Israel never formalized a Constitution is that they suppressed this secular -- religious battle and moved beyond it. And the number of Arabs, Christians, in the Knesset shows that. I think you do the "2 state" solution and then work to NORMALIZE borders and green cards and migration so that eventually -- in 2340 -- it no longer matters.

Actually, I agree about the "Jewish character" - but there is substantial pushback from the ultra religious groups to increase the role of religion in governance that is at odds with the secular Israeli's. I don't think they have moved beyond it at all and that is problematic in a religious and ethnically pluralistic society.

Coyote --- recognize that it has almost ALWAYS been "ultra-Orthodox" religious Jews who were the biggest opponents of Zionism in the first place. Their belief is that building an Israel wrecks "God's plan" for the Jewish people. And they are patiently for God herself to form a "Jewish nation".. Those Israelis are NOT political in the least. These cats are at WAR with secularists (and other lesser observant Jews) all the time -- but would never give a spit to political notions. There MAY BE members of Knesset that are Orthodox, but the majority of them don't even RECOGNIZE the government of Israel as a valid entity..

Might be in the same boat as the Israeli Christian Palestinian. They are in the "Holy Land" as far as they are concerned --- and Israel isn't even on their map....

you are a little confused FLACAL---- Most orthodox jews are ZIONIST JEWS----
the group to which you refer -----the politically anti Zionist are a small minority of
the Orthodox set. They are just a persistent pain in the ass because they did
manage to grab a KIND of political power. They, themselves, grossly exaggerate
their numbers and their power and might and overwhelming righteousness--but on
a personal level they are utterly harmless-----they also live in parts of the USA.
I have spent some time in my life living in their neighborhood (oy)

A LARGE fraction of the Orthodox community, especially those around DURING the Zionist period.

Go argue with the Jewish orgs and sources.. Anti-Zionism Among Jews | Jewish Virtual Library

 

[irosie91]

I admit, I haven't given serious thought to a one-state solution and have always supported 2 states but now that seems increasingly unlikely.

Questions though remain on rights because Israel wants to maintain it's "uniquely Jewish character" which is increasingly at odds with maintaining a secular government. You state "most rights" - what rights would they not have?

I wouldn't sweat the "uniquely Jewish character" part too much. We have the same discussion here with folks about the "uniquely Christian character" of the USA. One reason that Israel never formalized a Constitution is that they suppressed this secular -- religious battle and moved beyond it. And the number of Arabs, Christians, in the Knesset shows that. I think you do the "2 state" solution and then work to NORMALIZE borders and green cards and migration so that eventually -- in 2340 -- it no longer matters.

The US Declaration of independence doesn't declare the US a 'Christian nation', nor does US law exclude those who aren't Christians from being President, nor does US naturalization law automatically grant citizenship to any Christian that arrives, nor there a cross in the US flag.

Israel did and does all these things, save 'Jewish' in place of 'Christian'. With the Israeli Supreme Court doubling down on religion rather than bloodline, insisting that the 'Law of Return' exists only for practicing jews. With the PM pushing for Israel to be declared a Jewish State.

These aren't trivial issues. Equating them to the United States' 'christian character' would be a mistake. And it doesn't fully appreciate how thorny this particular issue is. A full 3rd of the Knesset has already voted to recognize Israel as the Jewish Homeland as part of Israeli 'Basic Law'.

There are crosses on US state and city seals and we have cows over that. Ever been to Corpus Christi? And a "full 1/3" of the US congress would probably support some kind of watered-down Judean Christian heritage resolution.. Check this out ---- List of national flags depicting a cross - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And the US isn't among them. Israel's Flag is based on the Star of David. Their declaration of independence declares them a 'Jewish' nation. The have a 'law of return' of automatic citizenship......but only for Jews. And per their own supreme court, only practicing Jews. And access to the nation's highest offices is restricted to Jews only.

The issue is far more serious in Israel than it is in the US. And it plays a dramatic role in Israeli politics. Not only among the ultra religious. But among the secular as well. The Likud party and its not particularly religious Netanyahu. Many secular Jews are also powerful supporters the 'unique jewish character' of Israel and it plays prominent roles in their politics.

But that's not the point. That area is NOT us. Most Christians in the West Bank (80% IIRC) identify as Palestinian. And to make it MORE complicated -- those Christians have ARAB heritage.

The term 'Israeli Arab' doesn't refer to a religion. With rare exception these arabs don't practice Judiasm. Making them incompatible with the Jewish State idea.

And the influx of huge numbers of Arab Christians and Arab Muslims would impact this 'uniquely jewish character'. With this and security concerns being the largest impediments to the 1 state solution. As the most ardent opposition to such a plan would likely arise from Israeli Jews.

Look -- OK --- You win. There IS a star of David on the Israeli flag. And Israel is never gonna grant citizenship and "right of return" to any yahoo on the planet that calls themselves a Palestinian. Largely not an issue because the number of Palis that would accept Israeli citizenship is in the single digits.

Israel has offered citizenship to Christian Palestinians in exchange for national service and hasn't got much traction. SO --- "right of return" is NOT an immigration policy. And immigration policy is a political decision not a "feature" of the Israel founding documents. As witnessed by any number of articles you can find in Ha'Aretz newspaper in a month criticizing Netanyanhu for his policy on african migration..

If the Palestinians are to be an official nation-state -- they need to have an autonomous region. And the ancestral home is more in the hills of the West Bank than in Tel Aviv..

Most all of the early Israeli settlements in Israel proper were BOUGHT from Palestinians who gave up their "right of return"..

Arabs don't have "ancestral lands" in Palestine------the arab invaders did not BUY
any land. The arabs who migrated to Palestine and invaded that land more than 1000 years ago were BEDOUINS------Bedouins-----by definition did not OWN land...
they just MOVED IN. They did not even actually own it when jews began to buy
it in the 1800s------jews brought it from the OTTOMAN OWNERS---they guys who
considered themselves TURKs. Generally the squatters were also paid off something. The squatting included squatting on jewish OWNED BY PURCHASE
land in the West bank-----most notably the entire city of Hebron which was purchased (ya know----like the civilized way-----with money). Jews never sold
the TEMPLE MOUNT. IN fact---never sold either east or west Jerusalem

 

[irosie91]

I admit, I haven't given serious thought to a one-state solution and have always supported 2 states but now that seems increasingly unlikely.

Questions though remain on rights because Israel wants to maintain it's "uniquely Jewish character" which is increasingly at odds with maintaining a secular government. You state "most rights" - what rights would they not have?

Similar limitations that exist for Arab-Israelies now: lacking access to the highest government offices. The PM for example would beyond them. But 99% of elected offices would be open.

Its problematic....but then so is every other idea. It is however an approach that hasn't been as fully explored as others. I think on the West Bank front its more viable. On Gaza? Not so much.

Gaza tends to be more militant, the West Bank less so. Any two state solution is going to run into major problems because of Israel's insistence of making Jerusalem its capital, despite the fact that it sits in the center of territory that isn't its own. It would be like the US making Ottawa its capital. And canada saying otherwise.

Such an arrangement necessitates constant conflict as unless everyone visiting is airdropped, they would have to pass through non-israeli territory to get to their own capital. Tel Aviv makes more sense logistically. But the israeli's want Jerusalem.

Well, annex it. The territory and the entire west bank then becomes Israeli territory.Israel would love the territory. Its the source of most of the water used in the lower lands to the west. It includes Jerusalem and restores Israel to much of its Torah era boundaries.

The main issue is the people. Israel wants to maintain a 'uniquely Jewish character'. By annexing the territory they'd also have to annex the people. And that means many, many more Arab Israelis.

However......Arab Israelies are generally pretty peaceful. And Israel is going to have to do something about the people eventually. The longer it waits the more severe the issues will become. And have become.

By making them Arab Israelies with most rights, they remove much of the impetus of rebellion. You might even be able to get Arab financial support for Arab Israeli economic initiatives to improve the employment and education situation of west bank arabs.

Gaza....is a whole different ball of wax. But with Gaza they can literally quarantine it. Not so much with the West Bank.

Jerusalem has always been the jewish capital. Jerusalem had no historical significance to so-called Palestinians until they wanted to make it an issue for a land grab.

name one other country that isn't allowed to maintain it's capital city. should new York be an international city because it's the financial center of the world?

New York doesn't have any religious value. Jeruselum (and Mecca and Medina) do. I don't know if it should be under international rule, but I don't think it should be their capital. Places like that are held under a stewardship for the future - not ownership. Riyadh is the Saudi capital, not Mecca.

I admit, I haven't given serious thought to a one-state solution and have always supported 2 states but now that seems increasingly unlikely.

Questions though remain on rights because Israel wants to maintain it's "uniquely Jewish character" which is increasingly at odds with maintaining a secular government. You state "most rights" - what rights would they not have?

I wouldn't sweat the "uniquely Jewish character" part too much. We have the same discussion here with folks about the "uniquely Christian character" of the USA. One reason that Israel never formalized a Constitution is that they suppressed this secular -- religious battle and moved beyond it. And the number of Arabs, Christians, in the Knesset shows that. I think you do the "2 state" solution and then work to NORMALIZE borders and green cards and migration so that eventually -- in 2340 -- it no longer matters.

Actually, I agree about the "Jewish character" - but there is substantial pushback from the ultra religious groups to increase the role of religion in governance that is at odds with the secular Israeli's. I don't think they have moved beyond it at all and that is problematic in a religious and ethnically pluralistic society.

Coyote --- recognize that it has almost ALWAYS been "ultra-Orthodox" religious Jews who were the biggest opponents of Zionism in the first place. Their belief is that building an Israel wrecks "God's plan" for the Jewish people. And they are patiently for God herself to form a "Jewish nation".. Those Israelis are NOT political in the least. These cats are at WAR with secularists (and other lesser observant Jews) all the time -- but would never give a spit to political notions. There MAY BE members of Knesset that are Orthodox, but the majority of them don't even RECOGNIZE the government of Israel as a valid entity..

Might be in the same boat as the Israeli Christian Palestinian. They are in the "Holy Land" as far as they are concerned --- and Israel isn't even on their map....

you are a little confused FLACAL---- Most orthodox jews are ZIONIST JEWS----
the group to which you refer -----the politically anti Zionist are a small minority of
the Orthodox set. They are just a persistent pain in the ass because they did
manage to grab a KIND of political power. They, themselves, grossly exaggerate
their numbers and their power and might and overwhelming righteousness--but on
a personal level they are utterly harmless-----they also live in parts of the USA.
I have spent some time in my life living in their neighborhood (oy)

A LARGE fraction of the Orthodox community, especially those around DURING the Zionist period.

Go argue with the Jewish orgs and sources.. Anti-Zionism Among Jews | Jewish Virtual Library

wrong-----a very small portion of the orthodox jewish community-----you are butting heads with the OPINION of the anti Zionist people In fact ---early on-----the original "Zionists" who went to Palestine-----were what ----we, today, call ORTHODOX. I cannot over-emphasize how much the anti Zionist crew IMPOSES their view point and cannot explain to you the relationship other jews
have with them-------they are treated like (believe it or not) treasured elderly
relics who much be treated with tender loving care-----who do you imagine has
been SUPPORTING them all these years?. The Naturei Karta are CODDLED
in Israel and their cohorts---like the SATMAR, are also coddled----by jews. Do not
worry------you are not involved.

 

[flacaltenn]

I wouldn't sweat the "uniquely Jewish character" part too much. We have the same discussion here with folks about the "uniquely Christian character" of the USA. One reason that Israel never formalized a Constitution is that they suppressed this secular -- religious battle and moved beyond it. And the number of Arabs, Christians, in the Knesset shows that. I think you do the "2 state" solution and then work to NORMALIZE borders and green cards and migration so that eventually -- in 2340 -- it no longer matters.

The US Declaration of independence doesn't declare the US a 'Christian nation', nor does US law exclude those who aren't Christians from being President, nor does US naturalization law automatically grant citizenship to any Christian that arrives, nor there a cross in the US flag.

Israel did and does all these things, save 'Jewish' in place of 'Christian'. With the Israeli Supreme Court doubling down on religion rather than bloodline, insisting that the 'Law of Return' exists only for practicing jews. With the PM pushing for Israel to be declared a Jewish State.

These aren't trivial issues. Equating them to the United States' 'christian character' would be a mistake. And it doesn't fully appreciate how thorny this particular issue is. A full 3rd of the Knesset has already voted to recognize Israel as the Jewish Homeland as part of Israeli 'Basic Law'.

There are crosses on US state and city seals and we have cows over that. Ever been to Corpus Christi? And a "full 1/3" of the US congress would probably support some kind of watered-down Judean Christian heritage resolution.. Check this out ---- List of national flags depicting a cross - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And the US isn't among them. Israel's Flag is based on the Star of David. Their declaration of independence declares them a 'Jewish' nation. The have a 'law of return' of automatic citizenship......but only for Jews. And per their own supreme court, only practicing Jews. And access to the nation's highest offices is restricted to Jews only.

The issue is far more serious in Israel than it is in the US. And it plays a dramatic role in Israeli politics. Not only among the ultra religious. But among the secular as well. The Likud party and its not particularly religious Netanyahu. Many secular Jews are also powerful supporters the 'unique jewish character' of Israel and it plays prominent roles in their politics.

But that's not the point. That area is NOT us. Most Christians in the West Bank (80% IIRC) identify as Palestinian. And to make it MORE complicated -- those Christians have ARAB heritage.

The term 'Israeli Arab' doesn't refer to a religion. With rare exception these arabs don't practice Judiasm. Making them incompatible with the Jewish State idea.

And the influx of huge numbers of Arab Christians and Arab Muslims would impact this 'uniquely jewish character'. With this and security concerns being the largest impediments to the 1 state solution. As the most ardent opposition to such a plan would likely arise from Israeli Jews.

Look -- OK --- You win. There IS a star of David on the Israeli flag. And Israel is never gonna grant citizenship and "right of return" to any yahoo on the planet that calls themselves a Palestinian. Largely not an issue because the number of Palis that would accept Israeli citizenship is in the single digits.

Israel has offered citizenship to Christian Palestinians in exchange for national service and hasn't got much traction. SO --- "right of return" is NOT an immigration policy. And immigration policy is a political decision not a "feature" of the Israel founding documents. As witnessed by any number of articles you can find in Ha'Aretz newspaper in a month criticizing Netanyanhu for his policy on african migration..

If the Palestinians are to be an official nation-state -- they need to have an autonomous region. And the ancestral home is more in the hills of the West Bank than in Tel Aviv..

Most all of the early Israeli settlements in Israel proper were BOUGHT from Palestinians who gave up their "right of return"..

Arabs don't have "ancestral lands" in Palestine------the arab invaders did not BUY
any land. The arabs who migrated to Palestine and invaded that land more than 1000 years ago were BEDOUINS------Bedouins-----by definition did not OWN land...
they just MOVED IN. They did not even actually own it when jews began to buy
it in the 1800s------jews brought it from the OTTOMAN OWNERS---they guys who
considered themselves TURKs. Generally the squatters were also paid off something. The squatting included squatting on jewish OWNED BY PURCHASE
land in the West bank-----most notably the entire city of Hebron which was purchased (ya know----like the civilized way-----with money). Jews never sold
the TEMPLE MOUNT. IN fact---never sold either east or west Jerusalem

I've posted the deeds to what became Tel Aviv before.. They look legit to me. And they are traced directly to Arab landholders that had no interest in being Israeli citizens or having "the right of return" ..

What ARMY or judicial system or government protected the deeds to Jerusalem for all those years?
It's just bizarre that any of this matters -- actually...

 

[irosie91]

The US Declaration of independence doesn't declare the US a 'Christian nation', nor does US law exclude those who aren't Christians from being President, nor does US naturalization law automatically grant citizenship to any Christian that arrives, nor there a cross in the US flag.

Israel did and does all these things, save 'Jewish' in place of 'Christian'. With the Israeli Supreme Court doubling down on religion rather than bloodline, insisting that the 'Law of Return' exists only for practicing jews. With the PM pushing for Israel to be declared a Jewish State.

These aren't trivial issues. Equating them to the United States' 'christian character' would be a mistake. And it doesn't fully appreciate how thorny this particular issue is. A full 3rd of the Knesset has already voted to recognize Israel as the Jewish Homeland as part of Israeli 'Basic Law'.

There are crosses on US state and city seals and we have cows over that. Ever been to Corpus Christi? And a "full 1/3" of the US congress would probably support some kind of watered-down Judean Christian heritage resolution.. Check this out ---- List of national flags depicting a cross - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And the US isn't among them. Israel's Flag is based on the Star of David. Their declaration of independence declares them a 'Jewish' nation. The have a 'law of return' of automatic citizenship......but only for Jews. And per their own supreme court, only practicing Jews. And access to the nation's highest offices is restricted to Jews only.

The issue is far more serious in Israel than it is in the US. And it plays a dramatic role in Israeli politics. Not only among the ultra religious. But among the secular as well. The Likud party and its not particularly religious Netanyahu. Many secular Jews are also powerful supporters the 'unique jewish character' of Israel and it plays prominent roles in their politics.

But that's not the point. That area is NOT us. Most Christians in the West Bank (80% IIRC) identify as Palestinian. And to make it MORE complicated -- those Christians have ARAB heritage.

The term 'Israeli Arab' doesn't refer to a religion. With rare exception these arabs don't practice Judiasm. Making them incompatible with the Jewish State idea.

And the influx of huge numbers of Arab Christians and Arab Muslims would impact this 'uniquely jewish character'. With this and security concerns being the largest impediments to the 1 state solution. As the most ardent opposition to such a plan would likely arise from Israeli Jews.

Look -- OK --- You win. There IS a star of David on the Israeli flag. And Israel is never gonna grant citizenship and "right of return" to any yahoo on the planet that calls themselves a Palestinian. Largely not an issue because the number of Palis that would accept Israeli citizenship is in the single digits.

Israel has offered citizenship to Christian Palestinians in exchange for national service and hasn't got much traction. SO --- "right of return" is NOT an immigration policy. And immigration policy is a political decision not a "feature" of the Israel founding documents. As witnessed by any number of articles you can find in Ha'Aretz newspaper in a month criticizing Netanyanhu for his policy on african migration..

If the Palestinians are to be an official nation-state -- they need to have an autonomous region. And the ancestral home is more in the hills of the West Bank than in Tel Aviv..

Most all of the early Israeli settlements in Israel proper were BOUGHT from Palestinians who gave up their "right of return"..

Arabs don't have "ancestral lands" in Palestine------the arab invaders did not BUY
any land. The arabs who migrated to Palestine and invaded that land more than 1000 years ago were BEDOUINS------Bedouins-----by definition did not OWN land...
they just MOVED IN. They did not even actually own it when jews began to buy
it in the 1800s------jews brought it from the OTTOMAN OWNERS---they guys who
considered themselves TURKs. Generally the squatters were also paid off something. The squatting included squatting on jewish OWNED BY PURCHASE
land in the West bank-----most notably the entire city of Hebron which was purchased (ya know----like the civilized way-----with money). Jews never sold
the TEMPLE MOUNT. IN fact---never sold either east or west Jerusalem

I've posted the deeds to what became Tel Aviv before.. They look legit to me. And they are traced directly to Arab landholders that had no interest in being Israeli citizens or having "the right of return" ..

What ARMY or judicial system or government protected the deeds to Jerusalem for all those years?
It's just bizarre that any of this matters -- actually...

all religions are bizaare and all national allegiances are bizaare. Who owns the
PYRAMIDS? -----can you post up the deeds? The koran (which is so perfect
that just suggesting that it is not PERFECT ----is a capital crime in shariah law))----
attests to the ownership by jews of PALESTINE. You seem to imagine
that the whole world functioned like the USA since adam and eve were eating apples. Who OWNS JAPAN? I offer you an insight into the Islamic ethos----
as you know hubby was born a dhimmi. He hangs around with people like
him--------former dhimmis or children thereof. Once during a holiday celebration
someone said the world "koran"------there was a general gasp and some angry
comments from the older people ------ACTUAL SURVIVORS. Back there in the shariah ruled country----it was a capital crime for a jew to so much as say the word
"koran"--------so they didn't--------hubby never does. I see no hope for the SINGLE
state "solution" and no reason for Israel to cede any land at all. Before Islam
there were actual jewish cities thruout north Africa------including in Saudi arabia and
Iraq ----and parts of Morocco etc etc----------for true equity ---Saudi arabia would have to give up Medina and Yemen would have to give up ADEN AND TAIZ ----
its most important PORT cities. Baghdad was once a generally jewish city as
was Alexandria Egypt. Why do you bring up ANCESTRAL LAND?----you open a huge can of worms-----AFGHANISTAN is ancestral land for Buddhists-----I grew up in a LENILENAPE town------- nobody bought that town from the Lenilenape Indians------George Washington just MARCHED IN

 

[Coyote]

I don't usually @ people but I would like to RoccoR - his posts, even when we don't agree are very thoughtful. I wish I could find the thread we had done discussing this several years ago, I searched again, but I think it was a victim of the software change.

In the years since - the situation in the ME has changed enough that I wonder if the two-state solution is even still possible Rocco?

 

[irosie91]

it never was. The only people who actually BELIEVED that a two state solution is possible are people who never interacted on a personal level with people educated
in muslim countries. I believe that the "negotiations" were just temporizing devices. In 1967 ----the sessions of the UN related to "CRISIS IN THE MIDDLE
EAST" occupied my days from late may until mid june. One after the other---the diplomats from countries with muslim majorities included in their speeches approx.
"WE WILL NOT TOLERATE A ZIONIST ENTITY IN OUR MIDST"----none---under no
circumstances-----NEVAH!!! these were the diplomatic diplomats. It is important to listen to that which people SAY. 1967----almost 50 years ago.
out of the mouths of persons representing "THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC of ______"
and some in Arabian costume. It seemed Kafkaesque to me----but no one else
seemed to notice and lots still do not notice. No one seemed to notice that ACHMADINEJAD----representing IRAN in the UN---announced "ISLAM IS THE RELIGION FOR THE WHOLE WORLD" ....no one noticed. It is important to pay
attention to that which people do not bother to notice

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote, et al,

Several world leaders, like German Chancellor Angela Merkel, UN Secretary-General Ban-Ki Moon, and US President Barack Obama, indicate that a two-state solution is the best way forward to solve the Israeli-Palestinian. Some believe, particularly Middle East Arabs, that the two-state solution has past its prime and beyond resurrection. A fewer number want a one-state answer and some want an alternative three-state solution. But it is not reasonable to assume that the Israeli government would want to take responsibility for the Arab-Palestinians given the political and economic liability they represent; son it is not likely the Israelis will support a one-stale alternative solution.

“In recent years there is growing pressure on the very core of Israeli democracy,” Ari Shavit (a Senior Correspondent at the left-of-center Israeli newspaper Haaretz) writes, in his book My Promised Land : “Occupation takes its moral toll … Ongoing occupation, ongoing conflict and the disintegrating code of humane Zionism are allowing dark forces to menace the nation.”
​

The Israelis (being only human) have lost their patience with the Arab Palestinians --- a culture that has pursued the conflict for nearly a century. There is no reasonable expectation that the Arab Palestinians have endeared themselves to the Israelis --- and it is not reasonable to assume, that given all the unnecessary grief the Arab Palestinians have levied towards the Israelis, that the Israelis will ever lend a helping hand to the Palestinians.

Similarly, the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, is desperately trying to get the UN Human Rights Council and the International Community to act on behalf of the Palestinians, in selectively enforcing action against Israel.

It is very unlikely that the International community is going to engage in armed combat with the Israelis to support the Palestinians who have conducted hostile operations against the Israelis for the last 70 years. It might be possible that the International community will try to influence the acceptance of a two-state solution; but even that is not an assured political stance given the lack of cooperation the Palestinians have demonstrated since 1988.

I don't usually @ people but I would like to RoccoR - his posts, even when we don't agree are very thoughtful. I wish I could find the thread we had done discussing this several years ago, I searched again, but I think it was a victim of the software change.

In the years since - the situation in the ME has changed enough that I wonder if the two-state solution is even still possible Rocco?

(COMMENT)

Mahmoud Abbas seems to be a bit annoyed in the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu mentioning the relationship between Arab Palestinian Leaders like Haj Amin al-Husseini, (Grand Mufti of Jerusalem), Hasan Salama (Commander of the Holy War Army) and Fawzi al-Qawuqji (Commander Arab Liberation Army) with the NAZI Regime. Abbas was suggesting that the Arab Palestinians were Lilly White in their relationship with the NAZIs. Neither side is attempting to set the conditions for good faith negotiations that could lead to a two-state solution. And it is not likely that the Israel will accept a UN imposed settlement.

So, I believe, at this time, negotiations between the two parties is not a reasonable expectation. And it might be the case that the desperate effort on the part of Mahmoud Abbas is in anticipation that he will not be in power very much longer.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Billo_Really]

Henry Cattan sat on the same committee with Emil(e) Ghoury, whom I quoted earlier, so either A) Ghoury is lying or B) Cattan is lying:

"The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the actions of the Arab states, in opposing partition and the Jewish State. The Arab States agreed to this policy unanimously, and they must share in the solution of the problem."

-Emile Ghoury, an Arab commander and Palestine High Committee secretary, the Beirut Daily Telegraph 1948.

Ghoury was given command of the Army of the Holy War after the previous commander Abd al-Qadir al-Husseini died in April 1948, by none other than the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem at the time, Haj-Amin al Hussieni, who conspired with Nazi Germany to carry out extermination of the Jewish people.

Ghoury was lying.

The reason the Arab armies went in, was to restore law and order after the British vacated. So why would they drive off the very people they came into help?

And why would anyone believe it was someone other than the Zionists, who stated what their intentions were before they migrated in to the area?

Those attacks were most likely in retaliation for the Hadassah Convoy Massacre which occurred on April 13, 1948. The attacks you mention were mainly carried out by the Haganah Militia, whom happened to be escorting that convoy at the time.

The Hadassah Massacre, was in response to the Deir Yassin Massacre, just a week earlier.

Since the UNPP (UN Partition Plan) was never implemented, because the Arabs fully rejected it, the Arab territory that would have been given to the Arabs... no longer belonged to them or rather, it was never given to them. The didn't want it.

It wasn't a fair deal. Who gives 70% of the land, to 10% of the population? Why would an overwhelming Arab majority submit to a strictly Jewish government? That makes no sense.

 

[Billo_Really]

You want a peace plan? Well, here it is...

• Stop protecting Israel with our veto in the UNSC
• Stop all weapons shipments to Israel
• Freeze all Israeli assets in US banks
• Ban AIPAC
• Submit a resolution to the UNSC telling Israel they got 90 days to end the occupation and blockade, or that decision will no longer be theirs to make
• On the 91st day, send in the Marines and drive the Israeli's back to Israel
• Then round up all their white trash settlers and stick them on busses and send them back to Israel
• Then set up a DMZ along the Green Line and shoot anyone who enters it from either side

That plan will work.

 

[Coyote]

You want a peace plan? Well, here it is...

• Stop protecting Israel with our veto in the UNSC
• Stop all weapons shipments to Israel
• Freeze all Israeli assets in US banks
• Ban AIPAC
• Submit a resolution to the UNSC telling Israel they got 90 days to end the occupation and blockade, or that decision will no longer be theirs to make
• On the 91st day, send in the Marines and drive the Israeli's back to Israel
• Then round up all their white trash settlers and stick them on busses and send them back to Israel
• Then set up a DMZ along the Green Line and shoot anyone who enters it from either side

That plan will work.

Sounds a bit one-sided...

 

[DarkFury]

You want a peace plan? Well, here it is...

• Stop protecting Israel with our veto in the UNSC
• Stop all weapons shipments to Israel
• Freeze all Israeli assets in US banks
• Ban AIPAC
• Submit a resolution to the UNSC telling Israel they got 90 days to end the occupation and blockade, or that decision will no longer be theirs to make
• On the 91st day, send in the Marines and drive the Israeli's back to Israel
• Then round up all their white trash settlers and stick them on busses and send them back to Israel
• Then set up a DMZ along the Green Line and shoot anyone who enters it from either side

That plan will work.

Calling for U.S. ground troops is not going to fly with the American voter.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

You want a peace plan? Well, here it is...

• Stop protecting Israel with our veto in the UNSC
• Stop all weapons shipments to Israel
• Freeze all Israeli assets in US banks
• Ban AIPAC
• Submit a resolution to the UNSC telling Israel they got 90 days to end the occupation and blockade, or that decision will no longer be theirs to make
• On the 91st day, send in the Marines and drive the Israeli's back to Israel
• Then round up all their white trash settlers and stick them on busses and send them back to Israel
• Then set up a DMZ along the Green Line and shoot anyone who enters it from either side

That plan will work.

Does that mean we give back the Suez Canal, Cairo, and other land Israel had control of in the last fifty years since you want us to take off the leash or do we just stay out of their business from now on even if they take land and decide to keep it?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[flacaltenn]

You want a peace plan? Well, here it is...

• Stop protecting Israel with our veto in the UNSC
• Stop all weapons shipments to Israel
• Freeze all Israeli assets in US banks
• Ban AIPAC
• Submit a resolution to the UNSC telling Israel they got 90 days to end the occupation and blockade, or that decision will no longer be theirs to make
• On the 91st day, send in the Marines and drive the Israeli's back to Israel
• Then round up all their white trash settlers and stick them on busses and send them back to Israel
• Then set up a DMZ along the Green Line and shoot anyone who enters it from either side

That plan will work.

Oh -- Another occupation then? This time at the cost of American lives and money? Got a PlanB?
SOMETHING like that might work if the "monitors" were from friendly LEGITIMATE Arab nations.

And what do you think would happen to all those tunnels and missiles in Gaza -- before the US Marines put their troops on the ground?? Can you say "house to house" searches?