Discussion
Peace: possible outcomes
1. 2 states
2. 1 state
3. 1 state (Israel) with 1 or 2 "bantustans" (Palestine or, maybe, Gaza and West Bank)
4. 1 state, a federation of 2 (possibly 3) equal statelets. (If Syria can be persuaded to cede the Golan, can the Druze have their own homeland?)
Discuss.
1. 2 states
2. 1 state
3. 1 state (Israel) with 1 or 2 "bantustans" (Palestine or, maybe, Gaza and West Bank)
4. 1 state, a federation of 2 (possibly 3) equal statelets. (If Syria can be persuaded to cede the Golan, can the Druze have their own homeland?)
Discuss.
Edited by TheRealFingers99 on Wednesday 26th November 07:39
TheRealFingers99 said:
Peace: possible outcomes
Number 3 is the one we're heading for. Although I'm not sure that Zionists would want to stop at the banks of the River Jordan.- 2 states
- 1 state
- 1 state (Israel) with 1 or 2 "bantustans" (Palestine or, maybe, Gaza and West Bank)
- 1 state, a federation of 2 (possibly 3) equal statelets. (If Syria can be persuaded to cede the Golan, can the Druze have their own homeland?)
Countdown said:
TheRealFingers99 said:
Peace: possible outcomes
Number 3 is the one we're heading for. Although I'm not sure that Zionists would want to stop at the banks of the River Jordan.- 2 states
- 1 state
- 1 state (Israel) with 1 or 2 "bantustans" (Palestine or, maybe, Gaza and West Bank)
- 1 state, a federation of 2 (possibly 3) equal statelets. (If Syria can be persuaded to cede the Golan, can the Druze have their own homeland?)
I think that is the most likely outcome (at least, temporarily and by force majeure) but I can't see it as being stable. Certainly, far from a 2 state solution, its the one genuinely supported by the Israeli politicos.
I actually favour number 4.
But which would you like? And can you see any way of getting there?
Ideally I'd prefer (1) but I think, given the amount of water that has passed under the bridge, (2) would be the least worst outcome.
I'm not sure how (4) would work. It suggests some sort of federation and I can't see the different parties willing to work together, at least in the short term. Too much bad blood.
I'm not sure how (4) would work. It suggests some sort of federation and I can't see the different parties willing to work together, at least in the short term. Too much bad blood.
A one state solution could end up another Ukraine or Yugoslavia, where two (or more) groups who have very different aspirations and beliefs are thrown together and, without a benign dictator, the elected leadership suits one group and the other group end up disillusioned.
There has to be partition.
Palestine recognised as a nation, a Palestinian government. That government can then be held to account by the international community for its actions.
There has to be partition.
Palestine recognised as a nation, a Palestinian government. That government can then be held to account by the international community for its actions.
Problem is that the settlements and the related infrastructure are designed precisely to prevent a viable two state solution.
As a side note it appears that legislation is being passed to formally make Israeli Christians and Arabs second class citizens. Hurrah for democracy.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/23/israe...
As a side note it appears that legislation is being passed to formally make Israeli Christians and Arabs second class citizens. Hurrah for democracy.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/23/israe...
TheRealFingers99 said:
Peace: possible outcomes
1. 2 states
2. 1 state
3. 1 state (Israel) with 1 or 2 "bantustans" (Palestine or, maybe, Gaza and West Bank)
4. 1 state, a federation of 2 (possibly 3) equal statelets. (If Syria can be persuaded to cede the Golan, can the Druze have their own homeland?)
Discuss.
Your missing the only acceptable solution to Hamas, Hezbolla, IS, possibly even many in Fatah.1. 2 states
2. 1 state
3. 1 state (Israel) with 1 or 2 "bantustans" (Palestine or, maybe, Gaza and West Bank)
4. 1 state, a federation of 2 (possibly 3) equal statelets. (If Syria can be persuaded to cede the Golan, can the Druze have their own homeland?)
Discuss.
Edited by TheRealFingers99 on Wednesday 26th November 07:39
1 Islamic state. (any jews who have not converted to Islam murdered) Shyria law, no education or votes for women.
Countdown said:
Problem is that the settlements and the related infrastructure are designed precisely to prevent a viable two state solution.
As a side note it appears that legislation is being passed to formally make Israeli Christians and Arabs second class citizens. Hurrah for democracy.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/23/israe...
Yes the settlements are a malign attempt to break apart Palestinian communities. If they do that and integrate Palestinians into Israel, then pass bills like that one then they are really not helping themselves. Unless their intention is to force the Palestinians into neighbouring countries?As a side note it appears that legislation is being passed to formally make Israeli Christians and Arabs second class citizens. Hurrah for democracy.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/23/israe...
Mrr T said:
Your missing the only acceptable solution to Hamas, Hezbolla, IS, possibly even many in Fatah.
1 Islamic state. (any jews who have not converted to Islam murdered) Shyria law, no education or votes for women.
Israel doesn't need to make peace with either Hezbollah or ISIS, any more than it needs to make peace with some nutcase Jihadi in Luton. It needs to make peace with the people living within the West Bank and Gaza. Creating paper tigers only helps those looking for excuses.1 Islamic state. (any jews who have not converted to Islam murdered) Shyria law, no education or votes for women.
I think that Israel has a viable peace partner in Fatah. If it can offer a realistic, acceptable peace plan I believe that Hamas would lose a lot of support and become marginalised. At the moment the only choices the Palestinians have are "sit back and allow more land to be annexed" or "active resistance". It's not really surprising which one some of them decide to take.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
This is the crux of it - settlements are illegal under international law yet Israel is continuing to push through planning applications at a vast rate (even more so now that the Palestinians are asking for world recognition)How is a 2 state possible with the above? It isn't; which means Israel only wants a single state for itself and the Zionists are pushing at all angles for this.
As someone said earlier; Israel is doing this now and ignoring any world condemnation only to say its too late to move the settlers (pretty much the same argument for the refugees, in that they have lost their land and have no right of return) - take about having your own cake and eating it!
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I have always thought that this is the long term plan of the Israeli powers-that-be. It's absolutely no secret that Israel wants to expand it's borders. They've been doing it since the day they were founded. In 60 years time - people will then be arguing what the map of 2014 looked like. "There was no such thing as Gaza or the West Bank, they were territories controlled by Israel which just happened to have some Palestinians living in them. Check the UN - there wasn't even a country called Palestine!"
Ideally, I think a 1 State solution with everyone granted equal democratic rights would be best. However sadly, I don't see this working as it kind of defeats the founding principle of Israel (a Jewish Homeland.)
zuby84 said:
In 60 years time - people will then be arguing what the map of 2014 looked like. "There was no such thing as Gaza or the West Bank, they were territories controlled by Israel which just happened to have some Palestinians living in them. Check the UN - there wasn't even a country called Palestine!"
I must say, that is a pretty good assessment of a future debate!Countdown said:
Mrr T said:
Your missing the only acceptable solution to Hamas, Hezbolla, IS, possibly even many in Fatah.
1 Islamic state. (any jews who have not converted to Islam murdered) Shyria law, no education or votes for women.
Israel doesn't need to make peace with either Hezbollah or ISIS, any more than it needs to make peace with some nutcase Jihadi in Luton. It needs to make peace with the people living within the West Bank and Gaza. Creating paper tigers only helps those looking for excuses.1 Islamic state. (any jews who have not converted to Islam murdered) Shyria law, no education or votes for women.
I think that Israel has a viable peace partner in Fatah. If it can offer a realistic, acceptable peace plan I believe that Hamas would lose a lot of support and become marginalised. At the moment the only choices the Palestinians have are "sit back and allow more land to be annexed" or "active resistance". It's not really surprising which one some of them decide to take.
So you really believe the population of Gazza and the West Bank want a fair peace despite them continuing to elect and support leaders whose only acceptable peace incudes turning Israel into a Muslim country and forcibly conversion or murdering every Jew.
Mrr T said:
Did you really write the above. Can you explain to some one as simple as me how Israel can bypass Hamas, Hezabolla, and Fatah to make peace with the population of Gazza and the West Bank.
I didn't say bypass Fatah - not sure where you got that from 
Fatah is the party in control of the West Bank. In simple terms if Likud can make a peace agreement with Fatah it will show the Palestinians that they have an acceptable alternative to the current solution. the only reason Hamas have the support that they have is because Israel and Fatah have progressed nowehere. As things stand the Palestinians have two choices; complete and utter acceptance that they will not have a viable State of their own or violent resistance in the faint outside hope that they can achieve something akin to what Hamas achieved in Gaza.
Why you think Hezbollah need to be involved I have no idea. They are an external body, in the same way as Syria, Iran, or any other foreign country. Continuing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians plays right into their hands IMO.
Mrr T said:
So you really believe the population of Gazza and the West Bank want a fair peace despite them continuing to elect and support leaders whose only acceptable peace incudes turning Israel into a Muslim country and forcibly conversion or murdering every Jew.
Hamas get the support they do because Israel has not demonstrated any genuine desire for peace or a two-state solution. Bibi has stated this openly. he's basically said two the Palestinians "You aren't getting your own country. No way. No how. Like it or lump it". Are you surprised that the Palestinians want to resist?Countdown said:
Fatah is the party in control of the West Bank. In simple terms if Likud can make a peace agreement with Fatah it will show the Palestinians that they have an acceptable alternative to the current solution. the only reason Hamas have the support that they have is because Israel and Fatah have progressed nowehere. As things stand the Palestinians have two choices; complete and utter acceptance that they will not have a viable State of their own or violent resistance in the faint outside hope that they can achieve something akin to what Hamas achieved in Gaza.
While Fatah claims control of the West Bank. If the Israeli withdrew its just as likely that just as in Gazza,t Hamas would take over.Countdown said:
Why you think Hezbollah need to be involved I have no idea. They are an external body, in the same way as Syria, Iran, or any other foreign country. Continuing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians plays right into their hands IMO.
Hezbollah continue to have active support in Palestine. I am sure they would do all they can to destroy any peace.Countdown said:
Hamas get the support they do because Israel has not demonstrated any genuine desire for peace or a two-state solution. Bibi has stated this openly. he's basically said two the Palestinians "You aren't getting your own country. No way. No how. Like it or lump it". Are you surprised that the Palestinians want to resist?
If you believe that, then fine. I believe Hamas gets support because a significant proportion of the Gazza population as good Muslims believe only in a Muslim solution which requires the destruction of Israel."Hezbollah continue to have active support in Palestine. I am sure they would do all they can to destroy any peace."
Far less than what they once did.
Palestinian refugees in southern Lebanon are pi$$sed because Hezbollax went to help Ass-wipe next door which included attacking the Yarmouk and other Palestinian refugee camps in Syria, and this was long before AQ, Jan & IS were on the scene - so Hez' have no excuse.
Last year Hamas closed their groups HQ in Damascus partly because of these attacks.
Phil
Far less than what they once did.
Palestinian refugees in southern Lebanon are pi$$sed because Hezbollax went to help Ass-wipe next door which included attacking the Yarmouk and other Palestinian refugee camps in Syria, and this was long before AQ, Jan & IS were on the scene - so Hez' have no excuse.
Last year Hamas closed their groups HQ in Damascus partly because of these attacks.
Phil
Mrr T said:
If you believe that, then fine. I believe Hamas gets support because a significant proportion of the Gazza population as good Muslims believe only in a Muslim solution which requires the destruction of Israel.
And that mindset has to be abandoned, but as good old fashioned Muslims they will not. And why they keep going backwards, whilst the rest of the world moves forward. They have a rear view mirror the size of a windscreen, and a windscreen the size of a rear view mirror imo.Israel could offer passports to 20,000 Palestinian children born this year and every year from now on ..
For my money (but I've not gorralot!)
1. 2 states
2. 1 state
3. 1 state (Israel) with 1 or 2 "bantustans" (Palestine or, maybe, Gaza and West Bank)
4. 1 state, a federation of 2 (possibly 3) equal statelets. (If Syria can be persuaded to cede the Golan, can the Druze have their own homeland?)
3 is the most likely, 4 is the most worthwhile.
A top down solution, led by the chumps currently in control of Israel/Hamas/Fatah will probably blunder towards 3 and will be touted by all 3 leaderships as a victory (witness Arafat's "victory" for the PLO). But it's difficult to see it being any more stable than the current position. It's even harder to see it offering a resolution of the refugees' right of return.
4. A bottom up solution might resemble the Rojava model. Small, local assemblies which need not be based on religious or racial groupings and which might not even be completely determined by national boundaries (for example, the Druze farmers in the Golan area look to Israel as their market, and the Druze community in Israel as their clan, while actually living in Syria). Local self defence groups contributing to a local army. For all its faults (and there are many) and the bickering, you can see an ugly, but pretty much functioning, top down version of this in the relations between Erbil (semi-autonomous Kurdistan) and Baghdad (central Iraqi government).
1. 2 states
2. 1 state
3. 1 state (Israel) with 1 or 2 "bantustans" (Palestine or, maybe, Gaza and West Bank)
4. 1 state, a federation of 2 (possibly 3) equal statelets. (If Syria can be persuaded to cede the Golan, can the Druze have their own homeland?)
3 is the most likely, 4 is the most worthwhile.
A top down solution, led by the chumps currently in control of Israel/Hamas/Fatah will probably blunder towards 3 and will be touted by all 3 leaderships as a victory (witness Arafat's "victory" for the PLO). But it's difficult to see it being any more stable than the current position. It's even harder to see it offering a resolution of the refugees' right of return.
4. A bottom up solution might resemble the Rojava model. Small, local assemblies which need not be based on religious or racial groupings and which might not even be completely determined by national boundaries (for example, the Druze farmers in the Golan area look to Israel as their market, and the Druze community in Israel as their clan, while actually living in Syria). Local self defence groups contributing to a local army. For all its faults (and there are many) and the bickering, you can see an ugly, but pretty much functioning, top down version of this in the relations between Erbil (semi-autonomous Kurdistan) and Baghdad (central Iraqi government).
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff