Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So they want a nation based on the same tenets as Israel.
The difference is I guess they won't have any tourism.
I suspect the pro-Palastinian posters on CD might move their permanently and take up jihad against Israel. Then you have the Code Pink folk and Michelle Obama's domestic terrorist gal pal Bernadine Dohrn who will organize vacation flotillas.
The main problem is this that both sides know how that the only split of the major issues that would ever be possibly signed by both sides is: no "right of return", East Jerusalem's Arab areas part of a Palestinian state, Israel keeping the dense settlements on the border but disbanding the smaller and more far-flung-out ones. The one issue in contention is what to do with the settlements that could go either way: the small ones on the border and the couple big ones further in. Both sides are in a game of chicken over this and have been waiting for the other to blink on the issue for 20 years. They probably will be doing the same thing another 20 from now. America hasn't succeeded in breaking this stalemate, but, we haven't made it worse either.
This delay in the hopes of a better deal on both sides of course exposes both to long-term dangers. As soon as Israeli's exploding ultra-orthodox population and slowly growing arab population together make up 50% of the electorate it will be electorally impossible for a governing coalition in Israel to come to power that would be willing to dismantle the (disproportionately orthodox) settlements. The other deadline on negotiations is the Egyptian peace treaty: the Palestinians gain real, tangible things from a deal - the Israelis gain a promise from the Palestinians to stop trying to harm/destroy them. If the Egyptian peace deal breaks down, you can stick a fork in the peace process cause it's permanently done.
Firstly, I want to commend you on posting on a subject that you know something about. Most posters on this forum who decide to jump into Israel-related threads know little or nothing about the subject. They post meaningless comments that serve only to propagandize and inflame.
So it's nice to have a comment with some substance to which I can respond. Who knows, maybe there can be a constructive, substantive exchange of views for once.
I agree with much of what you say. "the Palestinians gain real, tangible things from a deal - the Israelis gain a promise from the Palestinians to stop trying to harm/destroy them." Unfortunately this is true not only of a potential Palestinian deal, but it has been true of the treaties with Egypt and Jordan. It's a very serious risk for Israel, and the current events in Egypt are an excellent example. The "New Egypt" is vacillating between demanding significant changes to the treating and reneging on their commitments totally. The Sinai was totally evacuated of Israeli control in exchange for those peace commitments. So what does Israel do ithe New Egypt reneges? Take back the Sinai It's a very serious problem and the same could happen after a Palestinian agreement. As we have seen in recent times, Arab governments and societies are extremely unstable and prone to extreme changes.
I agree that compromises will have to be made on the issues of Jerusalem and borders. Both will be difficult but possible. The larger "settlements" by the way are mostly secular and where the great majority Of Israelis living over the green line (pre-1967 armistice line) live. I put the word settlements in quotes because these towns are really suburbs of Jerusalem which grew slowly over the decades with schools and colleges, shopping malls, beautiful parks, etc. Just like suburbs of American cities. So they are quite permanent. The connotation of the word "settlements" is not an apt description. But the "settlements" issue is a distraction. There were no settlements before the 1970's yet there were constant attacks on Israel in all those years before. Why?
Now to get to the heart of the conflict. You correctly state that any agreement will have to include no "right of return". And here lies the problem. The Palestinian Authority (and of course Hamas) have flatly rejected that. The PA wants one sate called "Palestine" which is Judenrein (Jew-free) and another called Israel which is currently more than 20% Palestinian Arab and, with the right of return for millions of 4th, 5th, and 6th generation "refugees", will be a second Palestinian Arab state. That position is a non-starter. ANY Israeli government will reject it. This issue is and always has been the reason for the conflict. The refusal of the Arabs to live with a Jewish state.
The main problem is this that both sides know how that the only split of the major issues that would ever be possibly signed by both sides is: no "right of return", East Jerusalem's Arab areas part of a Palestinian state, Israel keeping the dense settlements on the border but disbanding the smaller and more far-flung-out ones. The one issue in contention is what to do with the settlements that could go either way: the small ones on the border and the couple big ones further in. Both sides are in a game of chicken over this and have been waiting for the other to blink on the issue for 20 years. They probably will be doing the same thing another 20 from now. America hasn't succeeded in breaking this stalemate, but, we haven't made it worse either.
This delay in the hopes of a better deal on both sides of course exposes both to long-term dangers. As soon as Israeli's exploding ultra-orthodox population and slowly growing arab population together make up 50% of the electorate it will be electorally impossible for a governing coalition in Israel to come to power that would be willing to dismantle the (disproportionately orthodox) settlements. The other deadline on negotiations is the Egyptian peace treaty: the Palestinians gain real, tangible things from a deal - the Israelis gain a promise from the Palestinians to stop trying to harm/destroy them. If the Egyptian peace deal breaks down, you can stick a fork in the peace process cause it's permanently done.
I congratulate you for the neutral tone of your post, a rarity on this forum.
That said, I disagree with a couple of points:
1) The right of return: no Palestinian leader can sweep that under. Signing a deal with Israel that will provide no solution for the 2 + million refuges in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, etc. is not worth the paper... I wouldn't bet on the life of the leader either. It is only good as a tactic dealing with EU or other clueless Americans.
2) Many settlements on the west bank aren't Orthodox. While some may agree to accept compensations, some will not. They will fight to remain. Unlike in the past, the IDF today has many religious units which will refuse to evict settlers. That may tore the army and they can't afford that.
3) Withdrawal from East Jerusalem/holy places: not only most Israelis oppose that, but many Jews from all over the world strongly reject it as well. I can't see any Israeli leader accepting such step and remaining in power.
4) Most crucial: a Palestinian state on the west bank clutched between Israel and Jordan may not be sustainable. Once the Palestinians understand that, fierce violence will erupt, now with Hamas leading the fight from the west bank. With less ground and pushed with their back to the sea, Israel will react like never before. That will be disastrous for all.
5) The bottom line- Palestinians can defeat Israel quickly with peace offerings rather then violence. Israel however, can count on Palestinians never getting it.
So what, is it any differennt than what the Jews want, did you miss the 20ft walls they put up everywhere?
Casper
Palestinian Arabs make up a sizeable portion of the population of Israel. Indeed Palestinians serve in the Knesset. And you want to equate that with the ethnic cleansing the PA advocates? What's wrong with you?
Now to get to the heart of the conflict. You correctly state that any agreement will have to include no "right of return". And here lies the problem. The Palestinian Authority (and of course Hamas) have flatly rejected that. The PA wants one sate called "Palestine" which is Judenrein (Jew-free) and another called Israel which is currently more than 20% Palestinian Arab and, with the right of return for millions of 4th, 5th, and 6th generation "refugees", will be a second Palestinian Arab state. That position is a non-starter. ANY Israeli government will reject it. This issue is and always has been the reason for the conflict. The refusal of the Arabs to live with a Jewish state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oberon_1
I congratulate you for the neutral tone of your post, a rarity on this forum.
That said, I disagree with a couple of points:
1) The right of return: no Palestinian leader can sweep that under. Signing a deal with Israel that will provide no solution for the 2 + million refuges in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, etc. is not worth the paper... I wouldn't bet on the life of the leader either. It is only good as a tactic dealing with EU or other clueless Americans.
You two might be right on this. I honestly hope you're wrong, because the current situation is unsustainable, and in the long term I only see two possible outcomes
1) A peace deal that will involve the Palestinians giving up this issue (because the Israelis never, ever will - it's basically asking them to commit suicide as a society)
2) Israel being a dirt poor state under sanctions from the rest of the world; the Palestinians being either in Jordan or dead.
The chief negotiator for the Palestinian Arabs has confirmed that the state of "Palestine" must be Judenrein (Jew-free).
He also reaffirmed the Palestinian intention to inject millions of so-called "refugees", most of them fourth, fifth, and sixth generation, into Israel. That is in addition to the 20%+ of Israelis who are currently Palestinian Arabs. The result of course would be the demographic destruction of the state of Israel.
The chief negotiator for the Palestinian Arabs has confirmed that the state of "Palestine" must be Judenrein (Jew-free).
Incorrect. "Israeli" free, not "Jew" free.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's a very serious problem and the same could happen after a Palestinian agreement. As we have seen in recent times, Arab governments and societies are extremely unstable and prone to extreme changes.
