The future of Israel and Palestine

[TheNewTeddy]

Curious what people think will happen with the holy land, regardless of what they think should happen. Some words on the options.

What solution

1 - This is what most people presume when talking about peace nowadays.

2 - This is, in effect, what we have now. It means, in short, no "peace" and Israel continues on as-is.

3 - This is the worst case scenario for Israel, in short, their defeat.

4 - This is a one-state created peacefully, with "cantons" perhaps where some are Jewish and others Islamic. Many similar options can fit in here.

5 - Jordan and Egypt re-annex their portions of Gaza and the WB and "Palestine" never gets to see the light of day.

6 - Similar to option 4. The land is split into a Jewish state, an Islamic state, and a 3rd state shared by both.

7 - Israel loses a war to someone not interested in Palestine and they occupy both nations.

How it comes about

1 - War. Obvious, Israel goes to war and one of the above solutions is the peace treaty.

2 - Nations like the US or the Saudis put extreme pressure to get a solution NOW and Israel/Palestine is forced to oblige

3 - Both sides come to the table on their own and work out a deal

4 - Think the recent "Great recession" but far worse, changing the dynamic, and forcing peace on both parties.

2070

1 - Israel becomes the clear winner, having gotten what they want today and more.

2 - Palestine becomes the winner with people wondering why Israel did not sue for peace when the price was a bargain.

3 - Neither side "wins" / both sides "lose" / The populace of both "sides" win / etc

[eyeball]

Curious what people think will happen with the holy land, regardless of what they think should happen.

I have faith people will still be fighting over it thousands of years from now. There's little reason to believe otherwise.

[jbg]

I don't see that there's an equivalence. There are plenty of Arab countries. The nationality of "Palestinian" is fake to begin with. For demographic reasons it may be useful to section of Gaza and most of the West Bank. Effective military control, however, mus be with Israel.

[Moonlight Graham]

I don't see that there's an equivalence. There are plenty of Arab countries. The nationality of "Palestinian" is fake to begin with. For demographic reasons it may be useful to section of Gaza and most of the West Bank. Effective military control, however, mus be with Israel.

There are plenty of white-majority nations with Jewish minority populations. "American" is a fake nationality anyways. Native Americans say GTFO. Pretty sure jbg wouldn't budge.

[Guest American Woman]

There are plenty of white-majority nations with Jewish minority populations. "American" is a fake nationality anyways.

It's no more fake than "Canadian."

Edited to add: I see your point. For the record, I do believe Palestine also has a right to exist, but not at the expense of Israel. Israel's right to exist as a Jewish nation must be respected.

Edited August 19, 2012 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

Curious what people think will happen with the holy land, regardless of what they think should happen.

Who knows? I mean really, how would anyone have a clue? I hope that the young generation may be able to deal with it in a way the present and past generations have not been able to since they are more distanced from past conflicts and have been exposed more to a desire to care about, and think about the others. But it will take understanding on both parts, and I believe it will not happen unless there is a recognition on Palestine's part of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish nation, just as there are Islamic nations.

[jbg]

For the record, I do believe Palestine also has a right to exist, but not at the expense of Israel. Israel's right to exist as a Jewish nation must be respected.

I appreciate your views.

Unfortunately that's unlikely to happen. The demand to weaken and ultimately eliminate Israel's Jewish identity is more or less non-negotiable.

[TheNewTeddy]

Frankly, the price of peace is as low as it's going to get for Israel. The longer the wait, the worse of a deal they will get. They have maybe a decade, at MOST, before things start to really turn around, and when they do, they'll do so quickly. Within 30 years, the 1967 boundaries without one inch deviation will be seen as "Too pro-Israel" to be accepted.

[TheNewTeddy]

FTR my preference is the following

https://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?authuser=0&vps=2&hl=en&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=214668381355121949879.00049afec217cdeb22f83

However I think that by the time "peace" is found that Israel will end up looking more like this:

https://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?authuser=0&ie=UTF8&hl=en&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=214668381355121949879.0004c7ab6e6ba1b0af77a

Edited August 20, 2012 by TheNewTeddy

[jbg]

Frankly, the price of peace is as low as it's going to get for Israel. The longer the wait, the worse of a deal they will get. They have maybe a decade, at MOST, before things start to really turn around, and when they do, they'll do so quickly. Within 30 years, the 1967 boundaries without one inch deviation will be seen as "Too pro-Israel" to be accepted.

The problem is that the Palestinians will not accept any Jewish state.

[dre]

I don't see that there's an equivalence. There are plenty of Arab countries. The nationality of "Palestinian" is fake to begin with. For demographic reasons it may be useful to section of Gaza and most of the West Bank. Effective military control, however, mus be with Israel.

The nationality of "Palestinian" is fake to begin with.

This is really just idiocy. You have 4 million people living on land they were born on, with no surrounding nation (Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan) either accepting them as citizens or declaring sovereignty over their territory. This is literally the best case for statehood, both from a legal and logical standpoint that is ever going to exist anywhere.

[dre]

The problem is that the Palestinians will not accept any Jewish state.

The problem is that just isnt true.

[TheNewTeddy]

The problem is that the Palestinians will not accept any Jewish state.

They will if it brings peace, and, if it happens soon.

[wyly]

The problem is that just isnt true.

ya but it helps to perpetuate the myth...it's israel that creates the political impasse, it's israel that continues to ethnically cleanse the west bank making it impossible for palestinians to accept any agreement...israel knows it's actions are illegal and the palestinians can't agree to them which plays into zionist plan to annex the entire west bank ...

[jbg]

The problem is that just isnt true.

ya but it helps to perpetuate the myth...it's israel that creates the political impasse, it's israel that continues to ethnically cleanse the west bank making it impossible for palestinians to accept any agreement...israel knows it's actions are illegal and the palestinians can't agree to them which plays into zionist plan to annex the entire west bank ...

Show me any study where Palestinians show any consensus in favor of recognizing Israel specifically as a Jewish state within any boundaries.

[TheNewTeddy]

The world does not support Israel as a Jewish (only) state. Frankly, most of the world also rejects Islamic states, and rejects Christian states that are larger than a single building. They (most of the world) also rejects the same on race.

[Rue]

The world does not support Israel as a Jewish (only) state. Frankly, most of the world also rejects Islamic states, and rejects Christian states that are larger than a single building. They (most of the world) also rejects the same on race.

Now that is interesting. I have yet to heer anyone challenge the right of any state to be a Muslim state. Just who are you talking about? You have names?

As for your equally as absurd comment about Christian states, am I supposed to believe people question the fact that the United Kingdom is an Anglican state? Really? Who?

I have no idea who you are referring to with the above comments.

This notion you spoke to the world and foudnd out it does not support Israel as a Jewish state or does not support Christian or Muslim states is certainly interesting. I can't wait for you to reveal how it was you were able to contact the world but forgot to call me.

You ever stop to think your above comments are simply your own subjective opinions? Of course you do not know what the world thinks about Muslim, Christian or Jewish states.

Your absurd rhetoric is about as helpful as the other comments from Wyly with the usual blame it on Israel shtik or the usual JBG comments that Palestinians as a national people do not exist.

It is the same tiresome polarizing subjective rhetoric we have come to expect everytime this question is asked.

The fact is while the term Palestinian as a national entity is a relatively modern invention raised by Arafat int he mid 1970's it matters little as to its origins-the fact is Palestinians now exist and they are not going anywhere. Neither are Israelis.

The notion you can ignore either population or wipe either out is as absurd as the above rhetoric.

The answer to the question is as it always is-there will be mutual co-existence or war and death or a continued stalemate with protracted terror attacks and responses to them.

We already know the answer.

Edited August 22, 2012 by Rue

[GoodGrief]

I came here because I wanted to pose some questions. I can't really talk about this with my friends because well, for whatever reason, they just don't concern themselves with international affairs. I wanted to start a new thread for this but I guess because I am a new member, I don't have the permission to start a new thread, so I'll ask the question here (sorry for derailing). If someone feels it's worth its own thread, please feel free to start it for me.

I'll try to keep this as sterile as possible as to avoid a flame war.

1) Why did Stephen Harper reject Palestine's bid at the UN for statehood? Was it really because he felt that giving Palestine legal statehood would be detrimental to peace talks (which to my understanding, Canada has invested a fair amount of money into facilitating said talks)?

2) Why does Stephen Harper not condemn Israel for violating basic human rights of Palestinians such as denial of freedom of movement?

3) In regards to question one, does Harper have to ask for the input of any other elected member of parliament, or does the decision rest solely on his shoulders?

4) Do all political parties feel the same on this topic, Conservative, Liberal, NDP, lolPQ ?

Personally when I found out about this news, I was repulsed:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/07/11/canada-palestine-state.html

It just feels so.. unCanadian to me..

While each side has its own faults, there is a major imbalance here. Israel says they do the things they do to Palestinians in the name of the security of Israeli people. Maybe Israeli security wouldn't be in jeopardy from Palestinian "terrorists" if they didn't treat them like a sub-human (sub-Israeli?) race? There is a stark contrast in the quality of life of Palestinians and Israeli and I don't believe it's just a coincidence.

It's clear which side the United States is on, for whatever reasons, some legitimate, some not, I don't really care what they think. Unfortunately for us, it feels like Stephen Harper will have a crush on any American president, be it Democrat or Republican (like there is a difference lol).

5) Is this really the will of the majority of Canadians, or is it just Harper trying to show Obama how far he is willing to go to be his lackey?

Now that is interesting. I have yet to heer anyone challenge the right of any state to be a Muslim state. Just who are you talking about? You have names?

Rue, NewTeddy's post isn't even worth replying to. He clearly doesn't know what he's talking about, and if he does than he doesn't have a good enough grasp on the English language to make coherent arguments.

The problem is that the Palestinians will not accept any Jewish state.

This is simply not true.

a ) You can't speak for the majority of Palestine

b ) There is always the hope of both Palestine and Israel merging, or a fair division of land, with the city of Jerusalem potentially being a third autonomous and neutral state.

Edited September 20, 2012 by GoodGrief

[dre]

Show me any study where Palestinians show any consensus in favor of recognizing Israel specifically as a Jewish state within any boundaries.

Its not anyone elses business what kind of fake skygod you worship and they dont have to recognize it.

[GoodGrief]

Its not anyone elses business what kind of fake skygod you worship and they dont have to recognize it.

It seems to me that unless either side is completely wiped out, there is going to have to be a mutual understanding. The united states and the united nations have created a monster, but for various reasons they can not disband Israel. There are two major factors stopping world intervention. The first was giving Israel this land to call their home in the first place. Legally it wouldn't work to push them out into the sea, and nobody else will take all of them. Second, the guerrilla tactics that Palestinians are using on Israel does in fact hurt Israeli civilians (even if it may be a fraction of Palestine's victims). The latter is something that Palestinians are in control of, crying death to Israel doesn't really garnish international support considering what happened in world war two. They can only play the holocaust card for so long before people begin to realize the hypocrisy, but it won't do Palestine any good unless they take the moral high ground.... Patience and peace are the only weapons really effective against the "zionists".

Nobody has an answer for my questions a few posts up?

[carepov]

1) Why did Stephen Harper reject Palestine's bid at the UN for statehood? Was it really because he felt that giving Palestine legal statehood would be detrimental to peace talks (which to my understanding, Canada has invested a fair amount of money into facilitating said talks)?

According to his calculations, this stance would result in the largest gain or smallest loss in seats and votes in the next election.

2) Why does Stephen Harper not condemn Israel for violating basic human rights of Palestinians such as denial of freedom of movement?

According to his calculations, this stance would result in the largest gain or smallest loss in seats and votes in the next election.

3) In regards to question one, does Harper have to ask for the input of any other elected member of parliament, or does the decision rest solely on his shoulders?

I am sure he asks many people for input including MPs, but especially his pollsters and strategists.

4) Do all political parties feel the same on this topic, Conservative, Liberal, NDP, lolPQ ?

IMO: NDP = Complete opposite of CCP. Liberals = sit on fence with no position. PQ=irrelevant

Personally when I found out about this news, I was repulsed:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/07/11/canada-palestine-state.html

It just feels so.. unCanadian to me..

While each side has its own faults, there is a major imbalance here. Israel says they do the things they do to Palestinians in the name of the security of Israeli people. Maybe Israeli security wouldn't be in jeopardy from Palestinian "terrorists" if they didn't treat them like a sub-human (sub-Israeli?) race? There is a stark contrast in the quality of life of Palestinians and Israeli and I don't believe it's just a coincidence.

It's clear which side the United States is on, for whatever reasons, some legitimate, some not, I don't really care what they think. Unfortunately for us, it feels like Stephen Harper will have a crush on any American president, be it Democrat or Republican (like there is a difference lol).

Yes certainly there is blame on both sides. However, some would argue that Israelis are safer today compared to 2000-2001. I am not sure. Also, some say that it is the Palestinians that teach their children that Jews are sub-human. Again, I don’t know. AFAIK, Israeli-Palestinians have equal rights as citizens of Israel and have their own political party. You are not being objective and your inflammatory language is not productive. Also, did you hear Romney's comments about Palestinians? Of course there is a difference!

5) Is this really the will of the majority of Canadians, or is it just Harper trying to show Obama how far he is willing to go to be his lackey?

Most Canadians don’t care (like your friends and mine too). IMO, the position that Canada takes in the ME is an insignificant factor in US-Canada relations.

[bud]

Show me any study where Palestinians show any consensus in favor of recognizing Israel specifically as a Jewish state within any boundaries.

it's not required of them to accept it as a 'jewish' state as according to international law. so it's a moot point.

however, palestinians accept the state of israel as according to the 1967 border. they have done this since PLO officially recognized them in 1988 and again reaffirmed it in 1993 at the oslo accord.

so what's holding the zionist regime back from accepting a palestinian state? we all know the answer to that; it's not because palestinians do not accept the state of israel (because they do) and it's not because of security reason, because that makes no sense, it's because the zionist vision wants ALL of the land from sea to sea(aka greater israel) to be israel. the longer they drag their feet and have mouthpieces such as you apologizing for them and spreading misinformation, the more land they can steal through the settlements.

Edited September 20, 2012 by bud

[bud]

1) Why did Stephen Harper reject Palestine's bid at the UN for statehood? Was it really because he felt that giving Palestine legal statehood would be detrimental to peace talks (which to my understanding, Canada has invested a fair amount of money into facilitating said talks)?

because of the israeli (zionist) lobby.

a good article on this: What explains Harper’s slavish support for Israel?

(2) Why does Stephen Harper not condemn Israel for violating basic human rights of Palestinians such as denial of freedom of movement?

hypocrisy and again, the strength of the israeli lobby.

3) In regards to question one, does Harper have to ask for the input of any other elected member of parliament, or does the decision rest solely on his shoulders?

harper has shown that his foreign policy decisions are rarely debated within his own party and his party seems to accept that they shouldn't challenge his decisions.

(4) Do all political parties feel the same on this topic, Conservative, Liberal, NDP, lolPQ ?

conservatives only have 1 voice and that's stephen harper's voice. the liberals are majority in-line with the powerful lobby, but there are some who try to show some balance by questioning israel's treatment of palestinians. ignatiaff, if you recall, received a lot of flack for having a moment of honesty and calling israel's actions in gaza a war crime and then quickly he was forced to apologize. the ndp shows the most balance of the other parties, with the exception of mulcaire, whose riding happens to have a large jewish population.

Edited September 20, 2012 by bud

[GoodGrief]

conservatives only have 1 voice and that's stephen harper's voice. the liberals are majority in-line with the powerful lobby, but there are some who try to show some balance by questioning israel's treatment of palestinians. ignatiaff, if you recall, received a lot of flack for having a moment of honesty and calling israel's actions in gaza a war crime and then quickly he was forced to apologize.

Wow, that's really.. sad..

[GoodGrief]

According to his calculations, this stance would result in the largest gain or smallest loss in seats and votes in the next election.

According to his calculations, this stance would result in the largest gain or smallest loss in seats and votes in the next election.

Sigh..