Myth of the two-state solution.

[Bob]

[Bonam]

Care to summarize/comment on the video?

Edited June 15, 2010 by Bonam

[Bob]

Care to summarize/comment on the video?

Her basic premise, which I agree with, is that the concept of the two-state solution is flawed for several reasons. Primarily, the two-state solution is founded on the false premise the the Israeli-Arab conflict is rooted in Israel's occupation of territory seized after the Six-Day War - Gaza (only a semi-occupation now, after Israel's withdrawal and dismantling of Israeli residences), the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. If this premise was true, then why have Arabs and Muslims been murdering Jews and calling for the destruction of the Zionist entity in the later 19th century, and calling for the destruction of Israel as soon as Israel was declared a state (wars of '48, '56', and '67 occurred before any "occupation" took place)? Basically, this conflict is primarily ideological, and not territorial. As long as the Arabs and Muslims reject Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state (denying Jewish self-determination), the conflict will perpetuate itself. In other words, the Arabs and Muslims need to reconcile themselves with Israel's existence as a Jewish state (and accept Jewish self-determination).

There's much more to the video, for example how "moderates" like Fatah still deny Israel's character and endorse terrorism (which they describe as "armed struggle" and "noble resistance"). The examples of Arab and Muslim belligerence and hostility to Israel (murdering thousands of Jews in Israel and abroad over many decades) let us know exactly what kind of people we're dealing with. through their words and their deeds, Israel's enemies have made it clear over a century that they do not want peace... their idea of peace is the Helen Thomas solution.

[Bonam]

Her basic premise, which I agree with, is that the concept of the two-state solution is flawed for several reasons. Primarily, the two-state solution is founded on the false premise the the Israeli-Arab conflict is rooted in Israel's occupation of territory seized after the Six-Day War - Gaza (only a semi-occupation now, after Israel's withdrawal and dismantling of Israeli residences), the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. If this premise was true, then why have Arabs and Muslims been murdering Jews and calling for the destruction of the Zionist entity in the later 19th century, and calling for the destruction of Israel as soon as Israel was declared a state (wars of '48, '56', and '67 occurred before any "occupation" took place)? Basically, this conflict is primarily ideological, and not territorial. As long as the Arabs and Muslims reject Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state (denying Jewish self-determination), the conflict will perpetuate itself. In other words, the Arabs and Muslims need to reconcile themselves with Israel's existence as a Jewish state (and accept Jewish self-determination).

I agree with this as well, however, if the Arabs do one day reconcile themselves with Israel's existence as a Jewish state, would not the appropriate solution at that point still be the "two-state" solution? I don't see any other viable solution. Israel holding those territories in perpetuity would be a terrible mistake due to demographic issues, and they can't exactly be given back to Egypt and Jordan any more, so really the only choice is to create a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank. That, or driving out all the Arabs by force (which is what would have happened if it was a SE Asian or African state), but Israel is far too "nice" and concerned with human rights to do that.

[punked]

Once she called illegally occupying territories Liberating she was wrong. Sorry could not listen past that point.

[Bob]

Once she called illegally occupying territories Liberating she was wrong. Sorry could not listen past that point.

Yes, how offensive it must have been to a bystander like yourself who has no stake in this conflict, nor has ever read a book about it. You exemplify passion and ignorance as a bad combination.

[Bob]

I agree with this as well, however, if the Arabs do one day reconcile themselves with Israel's existence as a Jewish state, would not the appropriate solution at that point still be the "two-state" solution? I don't see any other viable solution. Israel holding those territories in perpetuity would be a terrible mistake due to demographic issues, and they can't exactly be given back to Egypt and Jordan any more, so really the only choice is to create a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank. That, or driving out all the Arabs by force (which is what would have happened if it was a SE Asian or African state), but Israel is far too "nice" and concerned with human rights to do that.

How much better the situation would now be if Israel has simply forcefully deported all of them. A two-state solution is entirely possible if the Arabs and Muslims accept it. They turned it down in 1947, and the turned it down in 1993. They don't want a two-state solution - they want a one-state solution - yet another Islamic state.

[myata]

How much better the situation would now be if Israel has simply forcefully deported all of them.

Listen to this voice of peaceful humanity itself.

And how would such "deportation" be called? Correct, "ethnic cleansing"

And how it would be classified? Yes, "crime against humanity"

And where would organisers and perpetrators of such acts find themselves (when on the wrong side of our split vision western justice)? True, in The Haag.

Now try to turn this phrase on the other side and imagine the unimaginable wail and invocation of the worst curses and accusations in most heinous crimes possible.

No, pumping financial and military assistance into the area where people talk about each other this way is nothing short of feeding the conflict itself. If we ever recognised this, it may be our most valuable contribution to peace in many, many years.

Edited June 15, 2010 by myata

[Bonam]

Listen to this voice of peaceful humanity itself. Now try to turn this phrase on the other side and imagine the unimaginable wail and invocation of the worst curses and accusations in most heinous crimes possible.

No, pumping financial and military assistance into the area where people talk about each other this way is nothing short of feeding the conflict itself. If we ever recognised this, it may be our most valuable contribution to peace in many, many years.

Realistically though, he has a point. Imagine if in 1967, when Israel had taken control of the West Bank and Gaza, they had promptly driven out all the Arabs in those areas into the states which they had previously been part of (Egypt and Jordan). Since at that point these people were still Egyptians and Jordanians, rather than Palestinians, they would have had to be accepted as citizens and would have moved on with their lives. Israel would hold the West Bank and Gaza and there would be no refugee problem, no "starving children", no blockade, etc.

Of course this is all hypothetical and unpalatable to many, including to Israelis, which is why they didn't do it. But I think it's quite possible that had Israel done that in 1967, the situation today may have been better for both sides. However, while that may have been an option in 67, it's not an option anymore, as even if Israel wanted to do it (which they don't), there would be far too much international opposition. Hence why the 2 state solution isn't a "myth" but in my opinion the only realistic outcome.

Edited June 15, 2010 by Bonam

[Bob]

Listen to this voice of peaceful humanity itself.

And how would such "deportation" be called? Correct, "ethnic cleansing"

And how it would be classified? Yes, "crime against humanity"

And where would organisers and perpetrators of such acts find themselves (when on the wrong side of our split vision western justice)? True, in The Haag.

Now try to turn this phrase on the other side and imagine the unimaginable wail and invocation of the worst curses and accusations in most heinous crimes possible.

No, pumping financial and military assistance into the area where people talk about each other this way is nothing short of feeding the conflict itself. If we ever recognised this, it may be our most valuable contribution to peace in many, many years.

Spare me the holier-than-thou sermon. If this decision would've been made, thousands of lives woudl've been saved. Clearly the Arab and ewish populations in the Middle East aren't ready for coexistence.

[wyly]

Clearly the Arab and ewish populations in the Middle East aren't ready for coexistence.

well there's historical ignorance of epic proportions...for a thousand years Jews, Christians and Muslims have co-existed in relative peace compare to the persecutions that took place in Europe, not till Zionism raised it's racist agenda did serious conflict arise...

[dre]

Spare me the holier-than-thou sermon. If this decision would've been made, thousands of lives woudl've been saved. Clearly the Arab and ewish populations in the Middle East aren't ready for coexistence.

Not at all suprising to hear you endorsing ethnic cleansing. Youre not one iota different than the arab hardline conservatives that would like to do the same to the jews.

[dre]

Yes, how offensive it must have been to a bystander like yourself who has no stake in this conflict, nor has ever read a book about it. You exemplify passion and ignorance as a bad combination.

You exemplify that racism, stupidity and ignorance are a bad combination.

[Bob]

well there's historical ignorance of epic proportions...for a thousand years Jews, Christians and Muslims have co-existed in relative peace compare to the persecutions that took place in Europe, not till Zionism raised it's racist agenda did serious conflict arise...

Jews were second class citizens and discriminated against in the Arab and Muslim world as second-class citizens. It doesn't say much that the type of discrimination Jews experienced in the Muslim world wasn't as bad as pogroms and the Holocaust. It seems as if we Jews should be thankful if we're not being murdered. We don't want' "relative peace", we want self-determination and full autonomy.

Go fuck yourself when you suggest that Zionism is racism.

[Bob]

Not at all suprising to hear you endorsing ethnic cleansing. Youre not one iota different than the arab hardline conservatives that would like to do the same to the jews.

No, actually I don't advocate mass murder of Muslims around the world and I don't advocate the annihilation of all Muslim countries. All I'm saying, which isn't an original concept, is that forceful expulsion of Arabs (which are pretty much a fifth column in Israel, they openly declare allegiance to anti-Israel and anti-Zionist and anti-semitic movements) would've saved Israel a lot of internal strife and saved lives in the short and long term. The Arab parties in Israel are go as close to the line as being anti-Zionist as they can without breaking the law.

If you are anti-Zionist, you may as well call yourself an anti-semite.

[dre]

Jews were second class citizens and discriminated against in the Arab and Muslim world as second-class citizens. It doesn't say much that the type of discrimination Jews experienced in the Muslim world wasn't as bad as pogroms and the Holocaust. It seems as if we Jews should be thankful if we're not being murdered. We don't want' "relative peace", we want self-determination and full autonomy.

Go fuck yourself when you suggest that Zionism is racism.

Go fuck yourself when you suggest that Zionism is racism.

Oh oh... Little baby gonna cry? Are you ever going to stop whining about your heritage and endlessly playing the victim card?

[naomiglover]

I support the right for people like Bob to voice their opinion. Even if their opinion advocates fascism.

[Bob]

I support the right for people like Bob to voice their opinion. Even if their opinion advocates fascism.

There's nothing fascistic about my position on any Israel-Arab issue. I wonder if you've ever used that term to describe the positions of the countless Islamic organizations out there committed to Israel's destruction?

[naomiglover]

There's nothing fascistic about my position on any Israel-Arab issue.

Sure thing Bob.

Wow. Wikipediahas a section about what Bob advocates and supports:

Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong.[15] They claim that culture is created by collective national society and its state, that cultural ideas are what give individuals identity, and thus rejects individualism.[15] In viewing the nation as an integrated collective community, they see pluralism as a dysfunctional aspect of society, and justify a totalitarian state as a means to represent the nation in its entirety.[16][17] They advocate the creation of a single-party state.[18] Fascists reject and resist autonomy of cultural or ethnic groups who are not considered part of the fascists' nation and who refuse to assimilate or are unable to be assimilated.[19] They consider attempts to create such autonomy as an affront and threat to the nation.[19] Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the fascist state and the fascist movement.[20] They identify violence and war as actions that create national regeneration, spirit and vitality.

[myata]

There's nothing fascistic about my position on any Israel-Arab issue. I wonder if you've ever used that term to describe the positions of the countless Islamic organizations out there committed to Israel's destruction?

Only a call for ethnic cleansing? Correct that makes your position an identical twin of that of those organisations.

[myata]

Spare me the holier-than-thou sermon. If this decision would've been made, thousands of lives woudl've been saved. Clearly the Arab and ewish populations in the Middle East aren't ready for coexistence.

Yes, it's always justification for these kind of things. Lives saved (our lives of course), eternal evil prevented and so on. Good student of the atrocious teachers, but agian, hardly breaking any new truths.

[Bob]

Sure thing Bob.

Wow. Wikipediahas a section about what Bob advocates and supports:

Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong.[15] They claim that culture is created by collective national society and its state, that cultural ideas are what give individuals identity, and thus rejects individualism.[15] In viewing the nation as an integrated collective community, they see pluralism as a dysfunctional aspect of society, and justify a totalitarian state as a means to represent the nation in its entirety.[16][17] They advocate the creation of a single-party state.[18] Fascists reject and resist autonomy of cultural or ethnic groups who are not considered part of the fascists' nation and who refuse to assimilate or are unable to be assimilated.[19] They consider attempts to create such autonomy as an affront and threat to the nation.[19] Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the fascist state and the fascist movement.[20] They identify violence and war as actions that create national regeneration, spirit and vitality.

My education with respect to political ideologies is far beyond amateur Wikipedia articles. I know what fascism is. To be opposed to an Islamic terroristic component of the Israel society is hardly fascistic. To even suggest that Israel isn't pluralistic or homogenous with respect to its culture, politics, religion or any other way illustrates supreme ignorance of the Israeli social fabric. In your warped world, tolerance and pluralism includes accepting those who want to destroy you and your way of life. The difference between most Jews and Arabs in Israel is hardly the type of difference between Democrats and Republicans in the USA. Arab parties in Israel (who get seats in the Knesset exclusively due to Arab political support) are not subtle about their opposition to Israel's Jewish identity and solidarity with terrorist groups who wish Israel's destruction. I guess rejecting them makes me a fascist.

[Bob]

Only a call for ethnic cleansing? Correct that makes your position an identical twin of that of those organisations.

It's shocking to you because you know nothing about Israel, let alone the Arabs of Israel. The Arabs of Israel are openly hostile to Israel's Jewish character, and their election of Arab parties to the Knesset who openly show contempt for Israel's Jewish character and solidarity with those who wish to murder Jews and destroy Jews tell us most of what we need to know about them. Are all Israeli Arabs supports of terrorism and disloyal to the state and its character? No. Plenty of them are, however, and relations between them and the Jewish majority are not great.

[GostHacked]

If you are anti-Zionist, you may as well call yourself an anti-semite.

This kind of rhetoric gets you nowhere. I like Jewish people. I've had good Jewish friends growing up. I don't like the Zionist regime in Israel, it seems to be an extreme position even within the Jewish communities, both in Israel and other countries.

And before the British mandate/Balfour Declaration/LON and then UN mandate, Jews and Arabs live peacefully side by side in the same area that is now in turmoil. You can also call it ethnic cleansing .. aka genocide, the way Israel has systematically built the barrier to make it very difficult for Palestinians to live and work.

But if it makes you feel better to call people like me with this position, anti-Semite, I won't stop you.

[Bob]

This kind of rhetoric gets you nowhere. I like Jewish people. I've had good Jewish friends growing up. I don't like the Zionist regime in Israel, it seems to be an extreme position even within the Jewish communities, both in Israel and other countries.

And before the British mandate/Balfour Declaration/LON and then UN mandate, Jews and Arabs live peacefully side by side in the same area that is now in turmoil. You can also call it ethnic cleansing .. aka genocide, the way Israel has systematically built the barrier to make it very difficult for Palestinians to live and work.

But if it makes you feel better to call people like me with this position, anti-Semite, I won't stop you.

You can the plead ignorance - you don't know what Zionism is. If you DO know what Zionism is, however, and are opposed to it, you might as well go all out and become an anti-semite and go to Holocaust denial forums.

Jews and Arabs have NEVER lived in peace, side-by-side, in the Middle East. Jews were always subjugated as second-class citizens in the Islamic world, legally and with widespread support of the population. Of course there were many genuine partnerships and friendships between Jews as Arabs (just as between Jews and Germans pre-Nazi Germany), but that doesn't override the broader theme of persecution. Jews, and other non-Muslims, were "dhimmis". Oppression of Jews is a natural consequence of living in a Muslim country, given what the religion teaches about Jews.

This falsehood you're advancing is intended to support the lie that conflict is the result of the Jewish arrival in pre-Israel Palestine and subsequent establishment of Israel. Of course this is true, but this is due to the Arab and Muslim rejection of Jewish self-determination. Following your logic, the Middle East would be peaceful is the Jews simply left or relinquished their autonomy. Sorry, not gonna happen. We won't accept oppression as a means to achieve your perception of "peace".

I think you need to read up on the difference between genocide and ethnic cleansing. They're not exactly the same thing. To suggest that Israel building a separation barrier between it and its enemies is ethnic cleansing is simply absurd.

Seriously, if you're interested in this subject go do some real reading.