How Would You Solve the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict?

Ahh,, Ethnicity, look it up. Ethnicity is a catchall phrase with little bearing on this debate.

Ethnicity is related to Culture and as such covers almost any group. Those who speak the same language or share a set of beliefs can be said to be of the same ethnicity.

None of which means that Jews are any more than a religion, because of the reasons shown in Judaism 101 part of which is quoted below. http://www.jewfaq.org/judaism.htm

Are Jews a Race?

In the 1980s, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Jews are a race, at least for purposes of certain anti-discrimination laws. Their reasoning: at the time these laws were passed, people routinely spoke of the "Jewish race" or the "Italian race" as well as the "Negro race," so that is what the legislators intended to protect.
But many Jews were deeply offended by that decision, offended by any hint that Jews could be considered a race. The idea of Jews as a race brings to mind nightmarish visions of Nazi Germany, where Jews were declared to be not just a race, but an inferior race that had to be rounded up into ghettos and exterminated like vermin.

But setting aside the emotional issues, Jews are clearly not a race.

Race is a genetic distinction, and refers to people with shared ancestry and shared genetic traits. You can't change your race; it's in your DNA. I could never become black or Asian no matter how much I might want to.
Common ancestry is not required to be a Jew. Many Jews worldwide share common ancestry, as shown by genetic research; however, you can be a Jew without sharing this common ancestry, for example, by converting. Thus, although I could never become black or Asian, blacks and Asians have become Jews (Sammy Davis Jr. and Connie Chung).
 
Okay.... I going to put in my ten cents and then eject from this crazy train.

Israel is a sovereign nation. As such she has certain rights and responsibilities. Some of those rights are the right to rule over her lands as she sees fit. Some of the responsibilities are that she must protect her citizenry from attacks.

The question on whether the creation of Israel was right or wrong is a moot point. Israel is here today and we can't change the past. As for how Israel was created as a nation; some violence was part of it. But guess what.... one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It all depends on who writes the history books. In the USA, we didn't become a country by singing peace and joy. We rioted, fought, and killed British citizens and personnel.

The Palestinians that fled their lands during the last couple of conflicts lost those lands. During the war of 1967 and 1973 they were told by the warring Arab states that they would get their lands back, etc... well, they didn't and life's a b%tch.

The current course of action that the Palestinians and Israel's neighbors are taking are wrong. All of the surrounding say that they support the Palestinians but they don't want them in their own countries. Those Arabs nations use the Palestinians as a chess piece in the game they play with Israel. Sucks for the Palestinians. The majority simply want a good life. But what's strange is this hatred towards the Jews and Israelis. The majority of the Arab and Muslim world (they are two different things that do mix) want to wipe Jews and Israelis off the face of the Earth.... Israel won't allow that so they'll do what is needed.

I stand with Israel for a number of reasons.

1. They have the right to defend themselves. If someone lobs bombs into cities, kill random civilians, and simply cause acts of terrorism day in and day out then I will not shed a tear for what the Israelis do in defense and revenge.

2. The Palestinians have a right to live but they need to understand that they were never a nation. They were always a conquered people. If they want independence from their current rulers (Israel) then they need to come to the table as honorable people and not go back on every deal they make.

3. The Israelis are not enslaving Palestinians and having them build giant building with whips going at them day in night. The Palestinians make it sound like they are being herded into death camps and forced to die. What about their political masters that have stolen from them? Yasser Arafat didn't die a poor man in France. He stole from those that he claimed to support and fight for.... The Palestinians need to understand that no one will do anything for you. YOU MUST DO IT YOURSELF!

4. Israel is the closet thing over there to a stable nation with an actual government that's for the people to a degree. Unlike the Theocratic Despotic Regimes that litter the Middle East. Sorry but I don't stand with Royalty, Dictators, or Theocratic hellholes like Iran.

5. The Israelis while a Jewish State are pretty secular to a degree. I don't see them banning Bibles or Korans nor do I see them stringing up gay people in public like Iran or stoning women for walking out in public without a hijab or talking to another man other then her husband/father/brother.

When the Arab world wants to join the rest of the civilized societies in this dirt ball we call Earth then I will give them the respect. But until then.... Israel is my choice out there. When the Arab World removes the royal families, dictators, and theocratic regimes from their nations and have those replaced with a democratic republic form of government that respects the rights of the citizenry (both men & women along with those of different religions, sexual habits, or ethnic background) then I will support them. When they educate their fellow citizenry with the knowledge of the real world and not the hate spewed crap that says that they are the way they are because of Israel or American or the West but because of the lack of education, the ignorance, and the thievery of their leaders then I will stand with them.

Peace in the Middle East will only come with the majority of the population is educated and they realize that they're in the spot they're in because of the despotic leaders they have and not the Jews. Israel would love nothing more then to be left alone and allowed to expand within her boarders.
 
Okay.... I going to put in my ten cents and then eject from this crazy train.
All I can say to that is, "If you are just going to "hit and run", at least get a few of your facts right.

(1) If you occupy the land of another without their permission, you are not a defender, you are the oppressor, and the oppressed have every right to defend themselves against that oppressor. e.g. The French Marquis against the Germans. No one said anything about their tactics??

(2)Any like minded group of people can be a Nation (not that it has anything to do with this debate)
"Nation" From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A nation may refer to a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, and/or history.[1] In this definition, a nation has no physical borders. However, it can also refer to people who share a common territory and government (for example the inhabitants of a sovereign state) irrespective of their ethnic make-up
So in fact the Palestinians are a nation as they share a common heritage, language and expectations.

(3) The Israelis are stealing the land of innocent civilians, and what the owners actually wish to do with that land is none of the Israelis business. Also those Palestinians who were driven off their land in 1948 have never been allowed to return without giving up the right to all of their property. They are therefore forced to remain in the refugee camps as the countries where they are located do not want them either.

I could go on, and on,... but the remainder of your diatribe is largely just your opinion and has absolutely no bearing on the facts. Don't even start on who went back on their word, or I will start on things like this,...
Israel was only accepted into the United Nations on condition that it accept the Right of Return of the Palestinian refugees. Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations (General Assembly Resolution 273of May 11, 1949 ) requires Israel to comply with General Assembly Resolution 194of December 11, 1948 and Israel stated it agreed to comply with this resolution.
 
Last edited:
A very interesting discussion. There are many good arguments and it is very instructive for me to follow these posts.



Just a side note.

When you talk about Jews as a nation, we must remember that the word "nation" should not be understood in the modern sense but in the old sense as a group of people with a common history. It is more correct to say we are of the same family, we are all children of Israel, ie. we are descendants of the Patriarch Jacob, or Israel as he comes to be known as later.

When are you jew? In principle, only when your mother is a Jew. It therefore has nothing to say that you have converted to Judaism. So in a way you could say that being a Jew is a form of nationality or citizenship. But it must still be understood in the older sense of the word "nation"

Again, thank you.
Or "Rav todot"
 
Peace in the Middle East will only come with the majority of the population is educated and they realize that they're in the spot they're in because of the despotic leaders they have and not the Jews. Israel would love nothing more then to be left alone and allowed to expand within her boarders.

Thank you. This is the only way things will become peaceful there. Not making Palestine state, not moving Israel, not letting the Palestines rule over the Israel, but only education. Considering these surrounding nations lack education, I see them as the ones encroaching upon Israel.

We can only hope that the citizens of those countries topple their government and establish democratic state. Any other action taken can be backwards in results.
 
Thank you. This is the only way things will become peaceful there. Not making Palestine state, not moving Israel, not letting the Palestines rule over the Israel, but only education. Considering these surrounding nations lack education, I see them as the ones encroaching upon Israel.

We can only hope that the citizens of those countries topple their government and establish democratic state. Any other action taken can be backwards in results.
Your memory is very short, WWII was fought over Germany and Japan's expansionist ideas. They too would have loved to have just been just left alone to keep conquering more territory, are you trying to insinuate that this war occured because the Axis or Allies were uneducated?

If Canada successfully invaded the US, I guess that because US citizens are considered educated, you would just accept it? You are clearly delusional, it is absolutely nothing to do with education.

Being "uneducated" has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether you will accept an invader stealing your land.
 
The Jews (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים‎‎ ISO 259-3 Yhudim Israeli pronunciation [jehu'dim]), also known as the Jewish people, are a nation and ethnoreligious group originating in the Israelites or Hebrews of the Ancient Near East.

it's quite simple really.

I am an ashkenazi Jew, that is my ethnicity. I am not a german or russian or pole.

you are...dead wrong...:oops:

Congratulations, you are among the majority of jews today, despite centuries of opression and attempted extermination in an almost industrial scale.
Ashkenazim does represent the majority today, but what about the Sephardim, Krymchacks, Subbotniks, Falashims, or the Bene Israel jews?

Frankly, I've got some serious problems when it comes to define an ethnicity there.

And as the Israelites that the Romans drove into the Dispora was probably rather semittic of appearance, where does the blond jews come from???

Oh, and before you start fueling up and pull the "anti-semittic" card on me...
I aknowledge the fact that the state of Israel is a fact, and that it has to remain so.
It's just that I disagree on the politics, the boundaries, and the outright propaganda we see in that area today.

As a sidenote here it could be mentioned that Israel and the USA is strongly oposing palestinian attempts to be recognized as a nation-like entity and to have a seat in the UN.

Why do you think USA choose to block those attempts by a veto time and time again?
 
Your memory is very short, WWII was fought over Germany and Japan's expansionist ideas. They too would have loved to have just been just left alone to keep conquering more territory, are you trying to insinuate that this war occured because the Axis or Allies were uneducated?

If Canada successfully invaded the US, I guess that because US citizens are considered educated, you would just accept it? You are clearly delusional, it is absolutely nothing to do with education.

Being "uneducated" has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether you will accept an invader stealing your land.

Nay, but given a proper education, instead of having islamist "scholars" telling them what may be truth or not would give the palestinian children a possibility to draw their own conclutions, and maybe get rid of the war-mongers who's controling them today.

As long as they keep letting the extremists go on with their senseless attacks on Israel they will be on the loosing side, simply because the Israelis can just point at them and say: "Look for yourself, I told you!"
 
Nay, but given a proper education, instead of having islamist "scholars" telling them what may be truth or not would give the palestinian children a possibility to draw their own conclutions, and maybe get rid of the war-mongers who's controling them today.

As long as they keep letting the extremists go on with their senseless attacks on Israel they will be on the loosing side, simply because the Israelis can just point at them and say: "Look for yourself, I told you!"
I think that you highly over rate the input of Islamist scholars. Would you need a priest or minister of your religion, to explain to you, that having an invader steal your land is not what you want?

I'm an atheist, but I'm damned sure I wouldn't allow an invader to just take my country unopposed. In this case, religion or lack of education is an excuse against people doing what is completely normal.

In time of war our religious leaders tell us that we are doing the right thing too, and we generally accept it,... does that mean that we are poorly educated? No,... all it is, is religious groups riding the wave of popular opinion.
 
Last edited:
Your memory is very short, WWII was fought over Germany and Japan's expansionist ideas. They too would have loved to have just been just left alone to keep conquering more territory, are you trying to insinuate that this war occured because the Axis or Allies were uneducated?

If Canada successfully invaded the US, I guess that because US citizens are considered educated, you would just accept it? You are clearly delusional, it is absolutely nothing to do with education.

Being "uneducated" has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether you will accept an invader stealing your land.


No, WW2 occured because of stupidity on the Allies part and the deperation of the Germans. Japan just saw themselves as a master race and that is the reason they wanted to expand (lack of education maybe on Japans part?).

When I said uneducated I was refering to the other nations in the region who wants Israel gone so bad. I was trying to say that when democracy prevails then the future may be peaceful as Anti-Israel shouts will decrease.

As for your question; yes. If a country was to successfully take over my country, I would not fight it afterwards depending on the conditions. If they were rulers as China, I would fight without question, it depends which would be beneficial.

Like I said before, when the Palestinians as a whole denounce terrorist actions, then and only then can there be any chance of a path for peace/Palestinian state.
 
Last edited:
I think that you highly over rate the input of Islamist scholars. Would you need a priest or minister of your religion, to explain to you, that having an invader steal your land is not what you want?

I'm an atheist, but I'm damned sure I wouldn't allow an invader to just take my country unopposed. In this case, religion or lack of education is an excuse against people doing what is completely normal.

In time of war our religious leaders tell us that we are doing the right thing too, and we generally accept it,... does that mean that we are poorly educated? No,... all it is, is religious groups riding the wave of popular opinion.

Sorry mate, it's the other way around.

It could very well be that Abbas is running a a more tidy shop than Arafat did, but everybody knew that the corruption under Arafat's rule had infected the system to the core.
At least the organisations who sought out to help and support normal people knew, and consequently they diverted their aid to Hamas instead.
Hamas is indeed an extremist islamist organisation, they was, and still are, far worse than the Fatah has ever been, but they had one positive feature.
They wasn't infested with corruption.

So while the Fatah was busy building a kind off governing system, installing air condition in their offices, and stashing their loot away in foreign bank accounts, the Hamas were the ones caretaking the rudimentary schools spread around the palestinian territories.

Children learn quickly, especially if you feed them a balanced amount of candy and wisdom, or in this case fresh sheets of paper, pencils, food, and the truth about Palestine and the jews, the according to Hamas that is.

Hamas has been busy doing charity and social care in the palestine territories, and especially Gaza, for years, gaining the trust of the people.
So it's really no wonder that there's a generation of palestinians who believe it when their teatcher says that Israelis are evil and murderous, and that it is off course right and just to volunteer as a suicide bomber at the age of 14.

I know it sounds easy when I write this, but keep in mind that the Hamas is running a sizeable charity organisation in their name, as well as the terror part.
Some claims that the Hamas is 80% charity and 10% terror, the rest being politics.
They have a network of hospitals, nursinghomes, kindergardens, schools and daycare centers, in addition to supporting poor people with money, food, housing and clothing.

As an adult you may not believe everything the Salvation Army preaches, but bread ans soup is still bread and soup.
Now, imagine growing up with the Salvation Army as your main support in life, if there are some guys from the "other side" who frequently bomb and shell your surroundings, you may be more inclined to believe it when the Salvation Army tells you that those people are evil.
 
Sorry mate, it's the other way around.
I dunno what you are reading, but you completely avoided my answer regarding the implied importance of the Islamic clerics.

In short. If your country was invaded, would you need a religious leader to explain to you that allowing an invader to take your country was not a good idea?

As for what their elected government is doing, that is SFA to do with it, and certainly none of our business. What we have to accept is that they are the governing body elected by the people, ostensibly because that is what the people are willing to put up with, just to have a controlling body who will oppose the Israeli invaders. To them it's a worthwhile trade off and these are the things one has to do in time of war.

The Palestinians elected their leaders because they are the people who would fight their enemy, not to please us.
 
no matter who you back

the only way for the palestinians to get 100% of historic palestine/israel was to kill every jew there

the jews aren't simply gonna budge...you can't just rol up 5.5 million israeli jews, in their thousands of cities, towns, and villages and boot them out

the only way forward is compromise...both the palestinians and jews accept this...hence the consensus that the 2 state solution.

joe, by being moe extreme than the palestinians themselves you are not helping them.

what happened has happened...the way to move forward is through peace, not more warfare/terrorism

adding to the body count won't help anybody
 
the only way for the palestinians to get 100% of historic palestine/israel was to kill every jew there
But that is not their intention. They lived quite peacefully with Jews (my Great grandfather being one of them), and Christians in their midst until the Zionists started arriving claiming Palestine as theirs.

the jews aren't simply gonna budge...you can't just rol up 5.5 million israeli jews, in their thousands of cities, towns, and villages and boot them out
Yes you can, but even the Palestinians see that as being somewhat unrealistic, but you can return control of the land to the owners. Those Israelis who don't, or won't fit in will leave of their own accord as they have for hundreds of years.

the only way forward is compromise...both the palestinians and jews accept this...hence the consensus that the 2 state solution.
Forget two the "two state solution", it is a lie pure and simple, as it would only provide a solution for Israel. The Palestinians have no reason to settle for that, after all, it is their country why would anyone in their right mind just give away what is rightfully theirs.

Again I will propose "The MontyB hypothetical". If I moved into your house, because some stranger told me that I could do it, then drove away your family and just took over,... would you settle for a two way split where I got ownership of all your worthwhile possessions, and you were forced to to live in the back yard, having to come begging to me for a part of what was yours (Which most times I would refuse)? I have asked this or similar, of you several times, and you have never given an answer. (Neither has anyone else)

joe, by being moe extreme than the palestinians themselves you are not helping them.
Supporting those who are claiming what is rightfully theirs is not extreme, it is correct, so I have absolutely no worries there. There are many benefits to me by having the high moral ground.

what happened has happened...the way to move forward is through peace, not more warfare/terrorism adding to the body count won't help anybody
Precisely,... so why are the Israelis determined to crush the owners of Palestine for their own selfish desires. This "what has happened has happened" is just BS, very convenient if you are the one who gets everything your own way.

Every day that passes just makes it harder for the israelis, they mistakenly think that if they make it really difficult for themselves the world will just cave in, whereas in fact the reverse is happening. This has been especially noticeable since the 2008 attack on Gaza. Too many people saw what actually happened and this is going to be the case more and more, now that the internet and cheap camera phones are easily available. This has also made the world aware of how many lies Israel has told in the past, blaming the Palestinians for reacting to deliberate Israeli provocation.
 
Last edited:
I dunno what you are reading, but you completely avoided my answer regarding the implied importance of the Islamic clerics.

In short. If your country was invaded, would you need a religious leader to explain to you that allowing an invader to take your country was not a good idea?

As for what their elected government is doing, that is SFA to do with it, and certainly none of our business. What we have to accept is that they are the governing body elected by the people, ostensibly because that is what the people are willing to put up with, just to have a controlling body who will oppose the Israeli invaders. To them it's a worthwhile trade off and these are the things one has to do in time of war.

The Palestinians elected their leaders because they are the people who would fight their enemy, not to please us.

No I didn't, the Hamas is by definition an extremist islamic group, dealing with part-time terrorism, running heavy (and much needed) charity work, and oposing the elected leadership in the palestine territories.

And by choosing to let Hamas distribute foreign aid, instead of letting chairman Arafat fill his pockets with it, we managed to give the Hamas credibility among the people in Gaza, and thus encouraged the split between the West Bank and Gaza.

While Abbas and the leadership on the West Bank are negotiating, the Hamas are running a fierce, but futile, fight against Israel from the Gaza strip.
Divide and concour has been a tactic applied for milleniums, and that's what happened in the Middle-East.
The actions of the Hamas against Israel will be used against Abbas and his struggle for negotiations.

How do you think the situation on the Gaza strip would appear to the public opinion if the people there was lead by a hindu organisation instead of a islamic one like Hamas?

The spirit of Mahatma Ghandi instead of Sheik Yassin's..
The bottom would instantly fall out of the Israely arguments for IDF retaliation.
 
No I didn't, the Hamas is by definition an extremist islamic group, dealing with part-time terrorism, running heavy (and much needed) charity work, and oposing the elected leadership in the palestine territories.
And did you ever stop to think,... If the Israelis would have abided by some of the conditional UN Resolutions (194 and 273 etc) and the conditions outlined in the Balfour Declaration Instead if thumbing their nose at the world,... There never would have ever been a Hamas, or an Al Qaeda, Black September or a 9/11?

Some people are so shortsighted and one eyed, that they couldn't see the back of their hand on a clear day.

Ohhh,... and you still have not answered my initial question, have you,... you've waffled and weaved around the edges but avoided answering.. so I ask again, "Would you need a religious leader to tell you that letting someone steal your land, is a bad idea", Yes or No?
 
Last edited:
Slightly off-topic, but I thought that I wanted to draw attention to this website.

http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/

It might be relevant.

Thank you.
Well,... it certainly is an indication that there are IDF members who are able to see through the lies and propaganda, and are willing to take great risks to tell the world what is going on.

One only has to look on YouTube to see the number of ex-IDF members who have blown the whistle on many aspects of Israeli policy that contravene all International and moral expectations for a civilised society.
 
Well Monty.

The two-state solution has its appeal. It would satisfy a majority of Palestinians and confer upon Israel the statehood legitimacy that it craves. It would bring the Jewish state peace with the Arab world along the lines of the 2002 Saudi Initiative, as well as a recognized right of self-defense against Palestinian cross-border attacks. Unfortunately, the attempt to resolve the Israeli- Palestinian conflict is characterized by a paradox. Resolving this conflict appears important and urgent and the basic outlines of a deal – two states – seem obvious to all. Yet this peace agreement, whose details are familiar, is not a desirable peace agreement! The two sides, aware as they are of the complex political reality, do not want it. The maximum that the Israeli government will be able to offer the Palestinians and to survive politically is much less than the minimum that a Palestinian government will be able to accept and to survive politically. In other words, neither Israelis nor the Palestinians are prepared to accept the so-called ‘Clinton parameters.’

Beyond a sharp clash of interests, and beyond the objective difficulty of satisfying both sides’ needs, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict suffers from a profound contradiction between the Palestinian ethos and the Zionist ethos. Since 1993 there has been an Israeli and international tendency to belittle these differences. Yet, when arriving at the moment of truth and attempting to reach a final settlement, the gap in ethos between the two peoples emerges as an obstacle that is difficult to overcome. Currently, there are three possible approaches to peacemaking.

Approach 1
Assumes that there is no way to reach a political solution in the foreseeable future, and hence conflict management is preferable to conflict resolution.

Approach 2
Seeks to achieve a “partial settlement;” perhaps a Palestinian state with temporary borders, while deferring the most thorny issues like refugees and Jerusalem for future consideration.

Approach 3
Seeks to reach a permanent settlement based on the two-states-for-two-peoples principle. Each of these approaches is problematic and, alas, unworkable.

Conflict management is no solution. It leaves the door open for hostile actors, like Iran, to continue to stir the pot, and erode Israel’s international security and legitimacy. Management of the conflict may be a reasonable policy in the short term, but in the long term it creates considerable strategic risks.

Interim settlements – such as a further Israeli redeployment or an agreement on a Palestinian state with temporary borders, is an approach totally rejected by the Palestinians, and one which does not necessarily serve the Israeli interest. In the framework of such a solution Israel will pay high costs for a negligible return. Israel will be forced to uproot thousands of Israelis from their homes, and will take the security risk entailed by relinquishing control over most of the West Bank. Yet the Palestinians will go on claiming that the ‘occupation’ continues since the permanent borders will not yet have been determined. Hamas and part of Fatah will see no reason to stop the armed struggle.

Advocates of a ‘permanent solution now’ ignore the zero-sum realities I described above, as well as the fact that there is no trust between the parties. Even if American pressure brought about a final status agreement (which in itself is unlikely), there is doubt as to whether the sides can carry out their commitments successfully.

Consequently, I wish to propose a new, regional approach that involves additional Arab actors in an attempt to solve the Palestinian issue. My approach questions basic assumptions and changes the cost-benefit calculus for the principal parties. The permanent solution and the interim solutions have three basic claims in common, each of which requires rethinking: that a solution to the problem is restricted (geographically) to the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea; that the solution lies in the establishment of an independent Palestinian state; and that the West Bank and Gaza will form a single political entity in any solution. These three assertions have confined the discussion to a narrow space and prevented a real discussion that starts afresh and examines all possibilities for a solution to the conflict without preconceived notions. I believe that regional actors and the international community need to re-examine the many benefits of a Jordanian-Palestinian federation and of land swaps involving portions of the Egyptian Sinai desert. These two solutions do not have the zero-sum nature of the conventional two-state solution. They enlarge the political pie and hence make it is easier to find a way to divide it. The two approaches – the Jordanian-Palestinian federation and the territorial exchange – do not contradict each other. They can become part of a single solution that combines the advantages of both.
 
Back
Top