I think this is an important point to remember… that all schemes cooked up by non-Jewish Europeans (especially prior to the Holocaust) were generally meant to deal with “the Jewish problem” as they saw it, meaning they did not see Jews as properly belonging to Europe and should be taken out of Europe.
But the question always comes back to if protecting their rights should come at the expense of others. Where does that leave us?
*Gag*
This idea, which I know isn’t yours, is largely predicated on the idea that all Arabs are the same and that Palestinians don’t exist. I feel like it’s worth addressing simply because I’ve heard it made with a straight face. It’s like asking Bangladesh to merge with Pakistan since they both have Muslim populations. The very nature of asking them to merge with both Egypt and Jordan is betrays a lack of cultural knowledge of the region. I could make an equally distasteful idea by pointing out the commonality and lineage of Jewish and European cultures and suggest that many go back to Europe. It relegates Palestinians to nuisance status and elevates Jewish concerns artificially.
Some of the schemes cooked up by the Herzl types were also intrinsically bound up in European colonialist traditions as well. Dispossession wasn’t viewed the same way it is now.
Which section is that? Hamas hasn’t done so. They have even spoken about aligning themselves with Islamic State. Mostly because Iran no longer considers Hamas worth the effort as proxy forces for them anymore. The Palestinian Authority never did either. If Hamas had actually sworn off violence, Egypt would probably not be so keen to keep its border with Gaza sealed as well.
A 2-3 state solution is really the only possible one here. The West Bank can only be a viable state if it is at peace with Israel and the settlements cease. 1967 borders are not viable or possible. Both sides have demographically spilled over them to the point where it only serves as a talking point for those not meant to be taken seriously. Gaza’s viability is not dependent on Israel. They have a border with Egypt as well.
Agreed. I don’t think it’s a solution, for this reason (and others - including from what I know, Egyptians, especially aren’t open to this).
Again, I agree. But you have hierarchies of power involved and obviously by playing to the accepted notion of reality, Herzl and others were looking to drum up support. This is not to say they weren’t firm nationalists, but that in order to gain legitimacy in the eyes of european power brokers, they spoke in the language of the time. This seems a common mode of working for a particular set of rights… you saw white feminist in the post-civil war period shift to using the language of Eugenics, for example, because it conferred legitimacy on their cause. The Japanese embraced imperialism and eugenics for the same reason.
How have they not? If you’re talking about rock throwing and people fighting back against their land being taken, at what point do you accept that peacefully? Where has a meaningful campaign of violence existed, led by the PA as the settlements have continued? I’m not saying that violence hasn’t been aimed at the Israeli occupation, but I don’t think it’s being organized from the top down.
As for Gaza/Hamas - the Egyptians do all they can to clamp down on Hamas, because they are seen as an outcropping of the brotherhood. The Egyptian state has no vested interest in Hamas being a powerful organization, which ironically gives them some mindshare, as they are seen as at least doing something about the problem, while the PA is increasingly seen as impotent.
Yet, the Egyptians adhere to Israel dictates on what is allowed in and out of Gaza. They’ve enforced the borders because it’s in their interest to do so.
Can I just take the time to pat everyone here on the back?
This is sadly the most civil discussion I’ve ever seen of the conflict outside of groups of academics.
A place so twisted that it took me all of 10 seconds to find common ground with ActionAbe.
To be fair, some academics aren’t so civil about this. Look what happened to Norman Finkelstein. Academics just express their hostility in very civil ways! 
And yes, we are awesome!
Oh, to be sure. It’s welfare for Boeing and Lockheed Martin and all the rest. It’s just that it’s a very small part of Israel’s overall economic picture, even as it works a subsidy to their defense budget.
There is a certain amount of both open and under-the-table support from the entire rest of the region, all of which would happily see Israel and Israelis obliterated. It’s not entirely the David and Goliath story that is commonly believed.
Probably when their leadership formally renounces all intentions of wiping out Israel in their own charter. Doing so would take the piss out of the arguments for Israel in a heartbeat. As would peaceful overtures towards Jordan. The Palestinians rightly fouled their situation up royally when they tried to take over Jordan in 1970 (The infamous Black September incident). It would allow pressure on Israel from their allies in a way which could be taken seriously. Fact of the matter is most Israelis can’t stand the West Bank wall, but they also see how it led to a dramatic drop in terror attacks across their border as well.
A Gaza with aspirations of statehood and leaders who don’t feel like betraying the interests of their people in favor of being foreign proxy fighters wouldn’t have this problem.
So, we all know the Sykes Picot boundaries were arbitrarily imposed, and that it was a brutal process to order Arabs on one side of those lines to call themselves Syria/Iraqi/Jordanian et cetera, and disruptive of the arrangements and way of life they had prior.
How exactly is the distinction between Palestinians and other Arabs any less arbitrary? From 1948 to 1967, the line of control in the West Bank ran right across one village, and the residents would set up a projector on one side to show movies on a screen on the other side. The line through Rafah was no different in that regard. And the distinction for migrants was even worse: if you moved from Safed to Damascus in, say, 1939, in search of work, you were Syrian. If you moved in 1948, to GTFAway from a whole lot of artillery shells flying around, you were a Palestinian refugee.
From the Israeli side, that distinction appears downright obscene. Palestinian: an Arab who dishonored himself by letting those lowly Jewish dogs assert their dignity in his vicinity. Non-Palestinian: honorable Arab who was not there and is thus free of that stain.
Like Syrian or Jordanian, the identity “Palestinian” is now associated with 70 years of common experience and can’t be waved aside the way militant Israelis would like. But neither should it be that sacrosanct.
There were attempts made to do so in 93 (which many argued was walked back in 96):
Abbas has seemed to also recognize the Israel right to exist:
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/4/26/palestinians-continuetalks.html
Much the same argument can be made about the Israel’s lack of recognition of Palestine as well. The right to exist argument goes both ways here.
Agreed - but to imagine that it’s only Palestinian intransigence that is part of the problem is completely missing the point. Hamas gets popular support because the PA is seen as ineffectual. PA supporters are losing patience with them for what they see as literally nothing happening since the death of Arafat.
You may agree more with the Israeli side here, but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t also responsible for the ongoing stalemate. Pretty much all the ground gained in 93 has been squandered, and yes, in part by both sides, but that doesn’t let the Israelis off the hook. They have the overwhelming military position here and the preponderance of political power.
Pretty much all national identities, as we understand them today are constructs. it doesn’t mean they aren’t real and that they don’t construct specific forms of power which have real impacts of people’s lives. Understanding that means understanding they aren’t sacrosanct, but again, that cuts both ways (or all ways). The constructedness of national identity means it can be reconstructed to better serve human interests and rights.
1997 was probably the closest both sides came to a real and lasting peace. Unfortunately a couple of outside factors ruined it for everyone:
Hamas has also kept Gaza in a complete lockdown and siege mentality in order to maintain control. Notice how there were no elections in Gaza after the 2003 ones which brought Hamas to power. To claim they still have popular support now is like how every dictator claims he was elected by the people. Hamas is not interested in statesmanship. They enriched themselves off of being the proxy of Iran at the expense of their own people. Nothing about how the run things internally shows the slightest concern for the welfare of those being ruled. Hence the talks with I-S. Egypt considers Hamas a threat as well for much of the same reasons. Nobody criticizes Egypt’s role in Gaza’s blockade, but they are as much a party as Israel.
The problem I see it comes largely from the Palestinian side. There is no equivalent of a Gerry Adams or Menachim Begin figure. Someone with the street cred as a “soldier for the cause” willing to consider statesmanship and future concerns besides staying well funded and well armed.
Don’t you think the assassination of Rabin and the rise of the Israel right also plays into this dynamic, though? Again, you keep insisting that the Israelis bear no responsibility (or at least little responsibility) for this or are part of the picture. If you want to call out the PA (or other organizations built by the Palestinians) to account, the Israel state also needs to be understood as part of the problem.
I don’t disagree. At no point have I expressed sympathy with Hamas or agreed with them - and can I say that frankly, whenever Hamas is brought up, it’s used far to often to condemn all Palestinians, no matter what their political position is. Their focus on Islam also ignores the fact that there is a large Palestinian Christian population who are just as equally effected too. Yes, Hamas doesn’t help, but they aren’t making this alone.
But they are the side with the least political and military power in this whole thing? I don’t think the people in charge of Palestinian organizations are blameless here, but how are they the ones who take the majority of blame, given their lack of options?
Usually i don’t care much of the plausibility of the starting scenario.
The plausibility of the developement is much more interesting.
I consider it a coda to a failed peace attempt. Something which could have galvanized the peace process as a martyr like the death of Sadat did for Egypt. But Oslo was already pretty much on its figurative deathbed prior to Rabin being on his literal one.
Israel is a democratic nation. Their leadership changes on a semi-regular basis. Which means their leadership can be pressured into accepting peaceful resolution of the conflict if they see it is viable and possible.
The Palestinians are a kleptocracy in the West Bank and a Theocracy in Gaza. Neither Palestinian regime has a lot of impetus to change the status quo beyond their personal enrichment. Dissent against leadership in the Palestinian territories is typically met with violence. They have far more to lose with peaceful resolution and democratic reform than Israeli leaders do. Israel faces constant international pressure both politically and economically to peaceful resolution. The Palestinian leadership face loss of funding and political power by one.
There is no way for Israel to even put out “the peace feelers” with some expectation of results at this point. Hamas is a legitimate threat with little sign of ceasing hostilities. The PA still pushes bad faith proposals coming out of the Arab League and avoids renouncing “the violent struggle”
Therefore the ball is in the Palestinian court. They are the ones who are in the best position to move things forward. All it takes is leadership to go all Gandhi or MLK on Israel. Israel would have no choice but to give in. I see a lot of excuses why it doesn’t. But the truth of the matter is Palestinian leadership has nothing to personally gain from such actions.
Maybe - but he was shot by a right wing Israeli, who rejected Oslo.
The current leadership has been in power for quite a while now, and the peace process has continued to stall or in some cases move backwards. The onus is being put squarely on the Palestinians, as the Israeli government continues to appropriate land.
Yet, they are still the sole responsible party here?
So their options are for any real change, in that case, are? If the Israel government is democratic and the Palestinian governments are not, how much are the Palestinians as a people actually responsible for, if they (outside of a few) have little to no political say in how their government is run? And what role does Israel play in exerting poitical power over these regions, given their tight border controls and their continued land grabs?
Again, this cuts both ways.
You’re maintaining that they have no options, yet it’s their sole responsibility to push forward on the peace process.
And let’s not fetishize King and Gandhi - part of the reason they were able to get what they wanted done, done was because of a number of factors that allowed them to bring a somewhat unified movement - Indian independence came after the war for a reason, not just due to non-violent resistance and same with King. they were fully able to grok the tensions and changes of the day and employ those, along with the mass media to get their agendas accomplished. And both were killed for it and we can see serious limitations to the changes their movements wrought (both of which were built on much longer histories of anti-racist and anti-imperial movements, some of which included violence). To think that if Abu Mazen just started a hunger strike or allowed himself to be arrested and write a letter from jail, then all would be moved forward is just missing the specifics of what is happening. Plus, it ignores that non-violence is often a tactic used and ignored by some Palestinian activists (hunger strikes by Palestinian prisoners, for example, which are often ignored). There is a long debate over the most useful tactics, and just like the King-Malcolm split, it’s by no means clear what the answer should be.
Pretty much for the same reasons Bobby Sands hunger strike and “dirty protest” didn’t do very much. As long as “the violent struggle” continues, it is easy to dismiss peaceful efforts in a cynical fashion.
A change in leadership by the Palestinians to people who actually give a damn about their people and statehood comes to mind.
Therein lies your problem. Israel isn’t dealing with the Palestinian people when it comes to any political action. Israel is dealing with leaders who are largely beholden to a status quo. One which screws the Palestinian people.
Not nearly as much as the Arab League and Iran do. As those who are spending money and sending arms over to ensure conflict keeps going on year after year. One bright spot is that both of them are losing interest in the Palestinians, choosing to focus on the Syrian Civil War.
They are the ones in the best position to act. Even if Israel had a dovish leadership right now, it could never hammer out a peace accord because the Palestinian leadership has no interest in one. Nor could they sell the idea on the Israeli people without some assurance of a real peaceful solution was even likely. One reason hawkish leaders have been in control in Israel is because there is really no sense of optimism in peace. Nobody thinks Palestinian leaders would propose or abide by one right now. Truth of the matter is peace serves Israeli needs far better than Hamas’s or Fatah’s.
Which other states in the region have nuclear weapons? And aside from that, do any really have military apparatus and personnel at all comparable to those of Israel, which can also count on U.S. support in any conflict?
Maybe I’m misreading you but the way you’ve worded it seems a bit off to me. Since you chose the words Eretz Yisrael, you separate the land from the State. From the “classical” religious zionist POV, while it may be understood as an imperative to dwell in the land, no state can be legitimate until the coming of Moshiach and the resulting return to Torah law, thus it doesnt matter whether the land is governed by a secular Jewish system or an occupying foreign power.
As I replied to @bersl2 that just isnt the case. From the religious perspective, even for Shas MKs, there isnt an issue with Muslims dwelling in the land. Jewish jurisprudence views Islam as monotheistic to begin with. I realize it is popular to cast the charedi in a villainous light but in this case it is for the wrong reasons.
That is interesting, how so? As I understand the Merkava is locally designed and manufactured. IWI/IMI may not do lots of manufacturing for export but have some very successful licensing deals on small arms. Iron Dome may be a co US/Israel developed system but AFAIK is primarily Israeli. IAI has done some interesting UAVs and believe it or not is already exporting its home grown cyber defense simulation training environment product.
I’m sure there are those in Jordan who recall Black September less than fondly as well…
It would be a start anyway. Not sure how far it would go as far as doing anything about the need for us to have our own nation though.
