Myth of the two-state solution.

[myata]

Same force that brough about this change; that friendly hush-hush behind the curtains diplomacy so miserably failed, and keeps failing to. Just shows that it's time to drop the pretenses and call things as they are as and when they happen. All that "friendly mediation" is complete and useless waste of time with no other purpose but to distract from or at least delay realization that objective, impartial and practical approach is the only one that has brought real reasults.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... impartial and practical approach is the only one that has brought real reasults.

Blockade running is hardly impartial....and not always practical.

[ToadBrother]

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...

Oh come on. The whole region was from the 14th and 15th centuries part of the Ottoman Empire, and most of the territory was held by Turkish landlords. Prior to that it was part of Byzantium, and was held by Byzantine landlords. Jews were a relatively small minority, as were Christians.

And yes, the Zionists sought a homeland, and got it, in very large part because the Ottoman Empire, already in collapse, completely disintegrated during WWI and the lucky Brits got the mandate for Palestine. We can debate all day whether it was right or not for Jews to seek a homeland in the area, but they did, and won it and kept it, and then won again a number of times. It's little different than any other nation foundings, including ours.

Israel is here to stay, it will defend itself, and that's all there is to it. The Palestinians and their Arab brethren across the borders can accept it, or not. In accepting it, there will be movement towards compromise, but electing puppet goons like Hamas, who are basically a paramilitary terrorist wing of Iran and Syria hardly seems a productive way to do things. Beyond that, a considerable amount of Palestinian misery is due to their ineptness of their leaders, all of which are violent thugs, and some of which, particularly in Fatah, are crooks as well.

[Machjo]

It's ironic that the group that now opposes a two-state solution is the very one that gave birth to Israel via a two-state solution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine#United_Nations_partition_plan

Had the British never partitioned Palestine, this problem would never have come into being. And seeing that Jews were already free to go to Palestine, why did they need to separate from Palestine in the first place? Could they not have lived side by side with their hosts?

Again, now that it has been partitioned, it's a little late to go back to it now. But one would think they could at least respect international law and retreat back to their original borders?

[Machjo]

From this site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine#United_Nations_partition_plan

I especially like the following quote (bolding mine):

"These events were the decisive factors that forced Britain to announce their desire to terminate the Palestine Mandate and place the Question of Palestine before the United Nations, the successor to the League of Nations. The UN created UNSCOP (the UN Special Committee on Palestine) on 15 May 1947, with representatives from 11 countries. UNSCOP conducted hearings and made a general survey of the situation in Palestine, and issued its report on 31 August. Seven members (Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, and Uruguay) recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states, with Jerusalem to be placed under international administration. Three members (India, Iran, and Yugoslavia) supported the creation of a single federal state containing both Jewish and Arab constituent states. Australia abstained. On 29 November, the UN General Assembly voted 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions, in favour of the Partition Plan, while making some adjustments to the boundaries between the two states proposed by it. The division was to take effect on the date of British withdrawal. It is important to note that the UN General Assembly is only granted the power to make recommendations, therefore, UNGAR 181 was not legally binding.[80] Both the U.S. and the Soviet Union supported the resolution. Haiti, Liberia, and the Philippines changed their votes at the last moment after concerted pressure from the U.S. and from Zionist organisations.[81][82][83] The five members of the Arab League who were voting members at the time voted against the Plan."

So essentially, partition was doomed from the start based on the last sentence in that paragraph. You don't create a new state the neighbours of which reject. The already existing countries have the first say over a nation-to-be. Personally, I think the idea of a united federal state with Jewish and and Arab sections within would have been the way to go, as it would have allowed them to discuss conflicts at the federal level. By separating them entirely from one another, you also eliminated any strong authoritative body capable of having the final say in any dispute, especially when the dispute is over who owns the land.

But again, it's probably too late to go to that now, but at the very least we could expect that Israel return to its original boundaries.

[myata]

Blockade running is hardly impartial....and not always practical.

Delivering civilian goods to populatoin where illegal military blockade prevents it may very well be. But this would be far off and entirely up to the willing members of the world community. For starters, a concerted strong statement, on illegitimacy of the ongoing construction in the occupied lands, or civilian effects of the ongoing blockade would do, so any takers on from our global leaders of peaceful justice and democracy?

[bush_cheney2004]

.... For starters, a concerted strong statement, on illegitimacy of the ongoing construction in the occupied lands, or civilian effects of the ongoing blockade would do, so any takers on from our global leaders of peaceful justice and democracy?

Sure....just as soon as we get the same about rocket attacks on civilians in Israel.

[Machjo]

Sure....just as soon as we get the same about rocket attacks on civilians in Israel.

There have been criticisms of the rocket attacks on Israel. The point is though that it's all one sided. The rocket attacks are evil, yet it's perfectly OK for Israel to occupy foreign land?

The two are unrelated. regardless of Israel's actions, Palestinians should not be targeting civilians. And regardles of the rocket attacks, Israel should not be occupying and colonizing foreign land illegally.

Start a thread on the rocket attacks, and I'll defend your stance, no problem there.

[Machjo]

I think the issue is that in Canada at least we perceive our country to be allied to Israel even if only indirectly via the US. As a result, we tend to be harsher on our allies since they also reflect on us as part of the alliance. If for instance we were allied to Palestine, then we'd likely be more critical of Palestine for the same reason.

[myata]

Sure....just as soon as we get the same about rocket attacks on civilians in Israel.

But of course, not like anybody is objecting to that. So far, however it looks very much like the construction train rolls on "rocket attacks" or not, and guess what not many of the "global democracy leaders" are interested enough to even notice, not to mention, condemn it strongly and promptly or even, god forbid, take practical steps.

[ToadBrother]

So essentially, partition was doomed from the start based on the last sentence in that paragraph. You don't create a new state the neighbours of which reject.

Why not? The Americans did during the Revolutionary War. The Nationalists did when they moved the Republic of China over to Taiwan after being defeated by the Communists. The Brits did when they created Pakistan. NATO did when they effectively created an independent Kosovo by bombing the Serbs into submission. There are a whole raft of countries created despite the objections of neighbors.

In general a nation state has a right to exist as long as it can meaningfully enforce its borders and control its territory. How nation states come to be is another question, and one which international law has never really come to grips with. This ludicrous idea that somehow Israel's founding violated some precept is fantasy, pure and unequivocal B.S. invented by Israeli haters of all shades who have invented this edifice of international law that has never existed, and curiously is applied only to Israel, and never to the entire list of countries who were formed despite strong misgivings, or even outright hostility from neighbors (Eritrea comes to mind as well).

The already existing countries have the first say over a nation-to-be. Personally, I think the idea of a united federal state with Jewish and and Arab sections within would have been the way to go, as it would have allowed them to discuss conflicts at the federal level.

And if wishes were fishes...

It's very clear that that option was never seriously on the table, and would have received no meaningful support from anybody in the region.

By separating them entirely from one another, you also eliminated any strong authoritative body capable of having the final say in any dispute, especially when the dispute is over who owns the land.

You're assuming that such a merger would have even had a strong authoritative body. I doubt that would have ever happened. If anyone had tried, I expect that the whole situation would have devolved into civil war. At any rate, this seems a rather pointless what-if.

But again, it's probably too late to go to that now,

Probably? It was too late the minute the Arab world decided it could wipe out Israel and push all those pesky Jews into the sea. Of course, those pesky Jews proved infinitely better at running military campaigns, and beat the snot out of the Arabs. If there's one thing that will found and define a nation state in a really big hurry, it's a successful war against a neighboring bent on its destruction. Whether or not Israel had any kind right to exist (whatever the hell that means, judging from the long history of the founding of sovereign states) prior to the first Arab-Israeli War, I'd say that it more than made up for that in sending the Arabs packing, and not just once but a number of times.

but at the very least we could expect that Israel return to its original boundaries.

That is also a fantasy. Victorious military powers don't tend to return all the territory they win from the losing belligerents. But if you feel strongly about this, I expect that you will also demand the return of Bohemia to Austria, Danzig to German and the Kurals to Japan.

In the end, if there is an end, Israel will have to give up some of the settlements, but the Palestinians are going to have to accept that in their Arab brethren repeatedly trying to wipe Israel out, and repeatedly failing, there is the reality that territory will never be returned, in particular East Jerusalem. Remember, the Palestinians could have had it, and everything, if they hadn't chosen war, just like the Germans would have had Danzig, Austria Bohemia and the Japs the Kurals.

Edited June 21, 2010 by ToadBrother

[myata]

And there's another kind of examples too, of people who thought they had natural claim to govern inferior savages (and as natural extension of this to their land). And look there their status and power and command is, now.

I'm not sure all is clearcut here, and there's a long way to go, specifically with East Jerusalem which will be a blocking point for any settlement effort that wouldn't involve some sort of compromise acceptable to both sides. And that may be a long long way in reaching.

[bush_cheney2004]

And there's another kind of examples too, of people who thought they had natural claim to govern inferior savages (and as natural extension of this to their land). And look there their status and power and command is, now.

I think Canada and the United States are still very much around and in "command" of the land.

[bush_cheney2004]

There have been criticisms of the rocket attacks on Israel. The point is though that it's all one sided. The rocket attacks are evil, yet it's perfectly OK for Israel to occupy foreign land?

It more than OK...it is enforced with military power!

The two are unrelated. regardless of Israel's actions, Palestinians should not be targeting civilians. And regardles of the rocket attacks, Israel should not be occupying and colonizing foreign land illegally.

The two are very much related....no peace...no land.

Start a thread on the rocket attacks, and I'll defend your stance, no problem there.

No, I'd rather see Hamilton Ontario attacked from Caledonia with rockets just to see how many Canadians would support the attacks.

[ToadBrother]

And there's another kind of examples too, of people who thought they had natural claim to govern inferior savages (and as natural extension of this to their land). And look there their status and power and command is, now.

Yes, Australia is still Australia, Canada is still Canada, Great Britain is still governed under what amounts to an evolved Anglo-Norman legal and political system, and so on and so forth.

I'm not sure all is clearcut here, and there's a long way to go, specifically with East Jerusalem which will be a blocking point for any settlement effort that wouldn't involve some sort of compromise acceptable to both sides. And that may be a long long way in reaching.

The Palestinians are never getting East Jerusalem back. If that's the stumbling block then it will forever remain one. They lost the wars, and losers of wars lose territory. That's my point, the one I keep trying to make over and over and over again. Whatever international law might say on the matter, at the end of the day, there's an older rule, and a rule that has governed the results of warfare since time immemorial, don't make war unless you're pretty sure you can win, because if you lose and the enemy seizes your territory, you're not going to get it back without loss of treasure, loss of territory, or loss of both.

It was pretty stupid for the Arab world to try to wipe out Israel, no? It sure screwed over the Palestinians. But the Palestinians wouldn't be the first people in history to lose territory, though, ironically, they may be among the last.

[naomiglover]

The Palestinians are never getting East Jerusalem back. If that's the stumbling block then it will forever remain one. They lost the wars, and losers of wars lose territory. That's my point, the one I keep trying to make over and over and over again.

You can keep making this point over and over, but it won't change the fact that no one except for Israel recognizes the annexation of East Jerusalem. This is because international law doesn't recognize it.

No one including Canada and United States recognize and accept it.

[ToadBrother]

You can keep making this point over and over, but it won't change the fact that no one except for Israel recognizes the annexation of East Jerusalem. This is because international law doesn't recognize it.

No one including Canada and United States recognize and accept it.

Which is in fact irrelevant, because none of those countries care the least to attempt to enforce any treaties or resolutions on the matter. One of the key points of international law, predating the UN by quite some time, is de facto control of a territory. It matters not a whit at the end of the day whether a bunch of diplomats sitting around a table declare solemnly that East Jerusalem should belong to whoever, or should be internationally-controlled or whatever, what matters is that Israel can effectively control East Jerusalem. I mean, the Japs still claim the southern Kurals, but it doesn't matter because Russia has defacto control, and even if every other country on the planet said "Russia, you need to return the southern islands", if Russia refuses and no one is willing to try to enforce the international community's opinion, then de facto begins to look a lot like de jure. When the international community decides to march into East Jerusalem and take it from Israel, then you might have a point, but until then you clearly don't understand how international law in fact works (or doesn't work, as the case may be, it ain't the all-encompassing monolithic structure you think it is).

Guess the Arabs shouldn't have tried to wipe out Israel, huh?

Edited June 21, 2010 by ToadBrother

[myata]

Yes, Australia is still Australia, Canada is still Canada, Great Britain is still governed under what amounts to an evolved Anglo-Norman legal and political system, and so on and so forth.

Not everybody was so lucky, especially in more densely populated lands. But I know it's so easy to overlook if that's what we (don't) want to see.

The Palestinians are never getting East Jerusalem back. If that's the stumbling block then it will forever remain one. They lost the wars, and losers of wars lose territory. That's my point, the one I keep trying to make over and over and over again. Whatever international law might say on the matter, at the end of the day, there's an older rule, and a rule that has governed the results of warfare since time immemorial, don't make war unless you're pretty sure you can win, because if you lose and the enemy seizes your territory, you're not going to get it back without loss of treasure, loss of territory, or loss of both.

Gosh TB, if you're so good at seeing futures, why not applying that wonderful ability to more rewarding avenues, like e.g. (big hint here) winning lotteries? Of course we already addressed the argument of power and dominition, it rarely tend to last "forever" or even over longer historical intervals, factors like environment and demographics can be much more essential.

It was pretty stupid for the Arab world to try to wipe out Israel, no? It sure screwed over the Palestinians. But the Palestinians wouldn't be the first people in history to lose territory, though, ironically, they may be among the last.

Back to self proving cheering (I'm right because I know that I'll be proven right), as alternative to rational argument?