Questions for Palestinians, Israelis, others in Middle East?

Page 1 of 4 [ 52 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Mona Pereth
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Sep 2018
Age: 63
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,178
Location: New York City (Queens)

21 May 2021, 2:40 am

The modern state of Israel has existed for approximately 73 years now. (2021 minus 1948 equals 73.) However one feels about the state of Israel, it does not seem to me that it will be going away any time soon.

That being the case, how can peace be achieved on terms acceptable to both sides?

It seems to me that an important key to peace might be to focus less on land claims and more on finding ways to radically improve living conditions for the Palestinian people, not only in Palestine but also in Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, where many Palestinians still live in refugee camps. (See What Are Palestinian Refugee Camp Conditions Like? - Anera.)

Does this idea make sense?

73 years is an awfully long time for someone to be living in a refugee camp! Many Palestinians have spent their entire lives in refugee camps. No wonder they hate Israel and want it gone!

However, not all displaced people cling to the hope of getting their land back. For example, after World War II, huge numbers of Germans who lived in what is now Poland -- and whose ancestors had lived there for centuries -- were deported into a now-much-smaller Germany. But, as far as I can tell at least, most Germans don't obsess about getting that land back from Poland.

The key difference, it seems to me, might be that Germany is now a thriving nation, and has been for decades -- thanks, at least in part, to generous Marshall Plan aid after World War II.

So perhaps the key to peace in the region might be the equivalent of a Marshall Plan for Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria?

The U.S. already gives various kinds of aid to Lebanon and Jordan. But perhaps not enough aid, or perhaps not the right kind of aid?

One basic and critical issue is water. As of this past fall at least, one problem seems to be that the Lebanese government can't get its act together to build a water desalination plant. (See Water as a Building Block for Peace in Lebanon and Beyond by Gabrielle Guerra, Geopolitical Monitor, September 1, 2020.) Perhaps either the US or some international organization could help here? On the other hand, it appears that the U.S. has recently helped to restore a war-damaged water desalination plant in Syria, despite lack of official diplomatic ties to Syria. (See USAID Restores Sustainable Water Access to Communities in Northeast Syria - Sunday, March 14, 2021.)

Seems to me there might be other kinds of infrastructure that could be built in Lebanon, Jordan, and/or Syria that might help their economies get off the ground?

Perhaps such aid should be given on the condition that the Palestinian refugees who have been living in Lebanon, Jordan, and/or Syria be allowed to benefit from the aid and be given full citizenship (or, at least, a reasonable path to full citizenship) in the countries where they have been living for lo these many years? Currently their rights in these countries are limited. (For example, according to the Anera article I linked to earlier, the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon "lack many important rights. They cannot work in as many as 25 professions. As a result, there are more Palestinian refugees living in poverty in Lebanon than in any of the other areas where UNRWA works.")

One hypothetical compromise that has been talked about now and then, over the years, is the idea of the Israeli government giving Palestinian refugees monetary compensation for the loss of their land, in exchange for the Palestinians dropping all attempts to get their land back. This seems to me like it might be a basically good idea, but it has never gotten off the ground, apparently because the amount of money offered by the Israelis has never been anywhere near enough to satisfy the Palestinians, and because of various other issues. (Just today I looked at Compensation for Palestinian Refugees: Law, Politics and Praxis by Rex Brynen, Israel Law Review, Volume 51, Issue 1, March 2018, pp. 29 - 46.)

But I wonder if it might be easier to work out a compensation deal if it were to be part of a larger international agreement involving a sustained effort, by the U.S.A. and/or by some international organization, to build the economies of the countries that host Palestinian refugees, in addition to Israel giving compensation to individual refugees.

The above are just my thoughts as an ignorant American who has never visited the Middle East. So I would be very interested in any comments, from all sides, by people who do live in the Middle East.


_________________
- Autistic in NYC - Resources and new ideas for the autistic adult community in the New York City metro area.
- Autistic peer-led groups (via text-based chat, currently) led or facilitated by members of the Autistic Peer Leadership Group.
- My Twitter (new as of 2021)


salad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2011
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,226

21 May 2021, 12:12 pm

Mona Pereth wrote:
The modern state of Israel has existed for approximately 73 years now. (2021 minus 1948 equals 73.) However one feels about the state of Israel, it does not seem to me that it will be going away any time soon.

That being the case, how can peace be achieved on terms acceptable to both sides?

It seems to me that an important key to peace might be to focus less on land claims and more on finding ways to radically improve living conditions for the Palestinian people, not only in Palestine but also in Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, where many Palestinians still live in refugee camps. (See What Are Palestinian Refugee Camp Conditions Like? - Anera.)

Does this idea make sense?

73 years is an awfully long time for someone to be living in a refugee camp! Many Palestinians have spent their entire lives in refugee camps. No wonder they hate Israel and want it gone!

However, not all displaced people cling to the hope of getting their land back. For example, after World War II, huge numbers of Germans who lived in what is now Poland -- and whose ancestors had lived there for centuries -- were deported into a now-much-smaller Germany. But, as far as I can tell at least, most Germans don't obsess about getting that land back from Poland.

The key difference, it seems to me, might be that Germany is now a thriving nation, and has been for decades -- thanks, at least in part, to generous Marshall Plan aid after World War II.

So perhaps the key to peace in the region might be the equivalent of a Marshall Plan for Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria?

The U.S. already gives various kinds of aid to Lebanon and Jordan. But perhaps not enough aid, or perhaps not the right kind of aid?

One basic and critical issue is water. As of this past fall at least, one problem seems to be that the Lebanese government can't get its act together to build a water desalination plant. (See Water as a Building Block for Peace in Lebanon and Beyond by Gabrielle Guerra, Geopolitical Monitor, September 1, 2020.) Perhaps either the US or some international organization could help here? On the other hand, it appears that the U.S. has recently helped to restore a war-damaged water desalination plant in Syria, despite lack of official diplomatic ties to Syria. (See USAID Restores Sustainable Water Access to Communities in Northeast Syria - Sunday, March 14, 2021.)

Seems to me there might be other kinds of infrastructure that could be built in Lebanon, Jordan, and/or Syria that might help their economies get off the ground?

Perhaps such aid should be given on the condition that the Palestinian refugees who have been living in Lebanon, Jordan, and/or Syria be allowed to benefit from the aid and be given full citizenship (or, at least, a reasonable path to full citizenship) in the countries where they have been living for lo these many years? Currently their rights in these countries are limited. (For example, according to the Anera article I linked to earlier, the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon "lack many important rights. They cannot work in as many as 25 professions. As a result, there are more Palestinian refugees living in poverty in Lebanon than in any of the other areas where UNRWA works.")

One hypothetical compromise that has been talked about now and then, over the years, is the idea of the Israeli government giving Palestinian refugees monetary compensation for the loss of their land, in exchange for the Palestinians dropping all attempts to get their land back. This seems to me like it might be a basically good idea, but it has never gotten off the ground, apparently because the amount of money offered by the Israelis has never been anywhere near enough to satisfy the Palestinians, and because of various other issues. (Just today I looked at Compensation for Palestinian Refugees: Law, Politics and Praxis by Rex Brynen, Israel Law Review, Volume 51, Issue 1, March 2018, pp. 29 - 46.)

But I wonder if it might be easier to work out a compensation deal if it were to be part of a larger international agreement involving a sustained effort, by the U.S.A. and/or by some international organization, to build the economies of the countries that host Palestinian refugees, in addition to Israel giving compensation to individual refugees.

The above are just my thoughts as an ignorant American who has never visited the Middle East. So I would be very interested in any comments, from all sides, by people who do live in the Middle East.


With all due respect the fact that in this long analysis of what you think would end the Israel-Palestinian conflict not once was the elephant in the room of Israeli settlements, occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and the Gaza siege, the fact that none of those 3 were even alluded to goes to show how much in America politicians and academics obfuscate and overcomplexify this issue so much that they can bring up some interesting details and juicy facts here and there, but nothing is said about the literal roots of this conflict, literal I say because this conflict is about land and land 1st, and so long as Palestinians are being displaced, having their land expropriated, and having their livelihoods uprooted, then their will never ever be peace in Palestine. Ever.

I'm btw not shaming you or insinuating youre dumb for not mentioning the elephant in the room; if anything I am taken aback by your exorbitant knowledge and research on a topic that you have no direct experience with and I applaud your suggestions. Rather I take much chagrin to the academics, news pundits and media outlets in America for skewing the presentation of this conflict so badly and distorting it so obscenely that when even someone as smart and educated as you brings it up you bring up everything except what this conflict is about.

Palestinians have already tried to make peace with Israel so many times, most notably in Oslo in 1993. The Palestinians, despite being the ones who bore the brunt of Israel's genocide, land theft, and military occupation starting in 1948 and which escalated in 1967, have always been apt to concede and compromise with Israel and give up more only for Israel to still not be satisfied and violate their conditions. In Oslo the Palestinians formally and officially recognized the state of Israel, gave up 4% more land of an already shrunken Palestinian state to Israel (imagine a homeless man being told to give up his clothes as a compromise to not being killed), promised non-violence, and yet what did Israel do?? They were too shallow and stubborn to even recognize a Palestinian state despite the Palestinians being generous enough to do the same for their occupiers, the Israelis didnt even have the decency to recognize a Palestinian state. Even worse the main thing the Israelis did promise to the Palestinians, no more settlement construction, the Israelis broke immediately and began to even undermine the Aqsa Mosque, the holiest site in Islam.

How do you make peace with a power that is so stubborn, so obdurate, that even when one side is practically giving up everything to make peace with an evil and tyrannical government the other side isn't willing to even so much as recognize you, and even the thing they did promise - not to build any more settlements, which should have been a nonnegotiable clause and which wasn't even worth stating since the UN already banned settlements in Resolution 242 back in 1967 - even the 1 crumb they threw at us they couldnt even honor?

I can confidently state that in this conflict Israel has been, is and doesnt seem like it will ever stop being the transgressing party. The fact that Israel, despite being an invading power flagrantly violating UN Resolutions and Geneva Convention articles like its nobody's business, stealing and gobbling up land like a virulent disease, the fact that Israel wasn't even able to recognize a state for the indigenous Palestinians despite us recognizing them, is enough proof that Palestinians have tried peace with Israel and it never works


_________________
"One often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it."

Master Oogway


Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 51,676
Location: Over there

21 May 2021, 12:25 pm

salad wrote:
nothing is said about the literal roots of this conflict, literal I say because this conflict is about land and land 1st, and so long as Palestinians are being displaced, having their land expropriated, and having their livelihoods uprooted, then their will never ever be peace in Palestine. Ever.
Yes indeed - this is exactly the point the UK ambassador for Palestine made, strongly and cogently, on a UK news channel last night. That, and so much more - despite the efforts of the interviewer to make sure it was <ahem> a "balanced" interview (which sadly, mostly consisted of just countering with the same tired "they're terrorists" points raised by the Israeli ambassador the night before).


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.


Mona Pereth
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Sep 2018
Age: 63
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,178
Location: New York City (Queens)

21 May 2021, 9:57 pm

To salad:

Thanks for your detailed reply.

I'm well aware of the root problem. I just think the root problem is intractable. Hence, if there is ever to be a lasting peace -- and if the majority of Palestinians are ever to have any reasonable chance of a secure, materially good life -- it seems to me that this can be achieved only through some very creative outside-the-box thinking.

The unfortunate demographic reality is that more and more Jews believe, more and more fervently, that they have been commanded by God to live in Israel (see aliyah) and that God has given them the right to rule Israel within its original Biblical boundaries -- including all of "Judea and Samaria" -- which includes the West Bank. And this isn't going to change anytime soon. Reason: The Orthodox Jews who believe this tend to have lots and lots of babies, whereas the more left-wing anti-Zionist Jews and even moderate Zionist Jews are having a lot fewer babies. (There are also some anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews, who reject the modern state of Israel on the grounds that it wasn't founded by the Messiah, but they are a small minority, as far as I can tell.)

Additionally, here in the U.S.A., we have a lot of evangelical Christians who see the founding of the state of Israel as a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy, and who believe that the U.S.A. must defend Israel in order to retain God's favor. These Christians constitute our largest single organized religious subculture. They are big enough and well-organized enough to control the Republican Party to a large degree. Even the Democratic Party can't afford to ignore them completely.

Here in the U.S.A. we do have people who sympathize with the Palestinians too, but there's no large organized subculture that makes this a high priority. It's unlikely this will change any time soon either, even with the rise of a somewhat better-organized left here in the U.S.A.

Therefore, it seems to me that the only conceivable solution would be to:

1) Find some way to give at least 50% of Palestinians at least as prosperous a life, and if possible a better life -- in Lebanon, Jordan, and other neighboring countries -- than they could reasonably have expected to have had even if the state of Israel and all its citizens were somehow to magically evaporate and the Palestinians could all move back to Palestine.

2) Pressure Israel to accept at least some of the remaining Palestinians as Arab citizens of Israel. (And I think Israel would likely be much more willing to do this if more Palestinians were to find a satisfactory longterm home outside of Israel/Palestine.)

There would then be the problem of how to protect the civil rights of those new Arab citizens of Israel -- including their right not to be periodically evicted from their homes. This would be something the rest of the Arab world, and the rest of the Muslim world, and leftist movements worldwide, would still need to breathe down Israel's neck about -- but I think it would be many orders of magnitude easier to get results on that issue, within a single Israeli state, than to persuade Israel to give up any land whatsoever to a separate state, at least in the long run. I also think it would be much easier to pressure Israel to stop evictions, both in the Palestinian territories and in Israel proper, than to stop Israeli settlements altogether, even on vacant lots.

As for the holy places, that's an issue affecting not just the Palestinians but the entire Muslim world. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the holy places are probably safe for the most part, at least in the foreseeable future, except for occasional incidents like the recent one.

Zionist Orthodox Jews do harbor a desire for an eventual "Third Temple" to be built on the Temple Mount. But, as far as I can tell, the vast majority of even the most fanatical Zionists believe that that's something only the forthcoming "Moshiach" (Messiah) is allowed to do. And, if anyone were to come along who was widely accepted by Israeli Jews as "Moshiach," that would drive a big wedge between Israel and its American evangelical Christian supporters, because said "Moshiach" would probably be seen by most evangelical Christians as the Anti-Christ.

I'll now reply to some specific parts of your post:

salad wrote:
this conflict is about land and land 1st, and so long as Palestinians are being displaced, having their land expropriated, and having their livelihoods uprooted, then their will never ever be peace in Palestine. Ever.

Is it not even theoretically conceivable that there could possibly be any way whatsoever to adequately compensate Palestinians for the loss of the land, in lieu of trying endlessly in vain to hold on to it?

salad wrote:
Palestinians have already tried to make peace with Israel so many times, most notably in Oslo in 1993. The Palestinians, despite being the ones who bore the brunt of Israel's genocide, land theft, and military occupation starting in 1948 and which escalated in 1967, have always been apt to concede and compromise with Israel and give up more only for Israel to still not be satisfied and violate their conditions. In Oslo the Palestinians formally and officially recognized the state of Israel, gave up 4% more land of an already shrunken Palestinian state to Israel (imagine a homeless man being told to give up his clothes as a compromise to not being killed), promised non-violence, and yet what did Israel do?? They were too shallow and stubborn to even recognize a Palestinian state despite the Palestinians being generous enough to do the same for their occupiers, the Israelis didnt even have the decency to recognize a Palestinian state.

Indeed I don't think this is ever going to happen, for reasons I've explained at the top of this post. Hence I believe that continuing to press for it will lead only to endless frustration at best.

salad wrote:
Even worse the main thing the Israelis did promise to the Palestinians, no more settlement construction, the Israelis broke immediately and began to even undermine the Aqsa Mosque, the holiest site in Islam.

Hmm, I'm not aware of exactly what happened at the Aqsa Mosque at that time, and a quick Google search has not helped me find it. Would you be willing to tell me enough keyword-rich specifics to help me look this up? Thank you.


_________________
- Autistic in NYC - Resources and new ideas for the autistic adult community in the New York City metro area.
- Autistic peer-led groups (via text-based chat, currently) led or facilitated by members of the Autistic Peer Leadership Group.
- My Twitter (new as of 2021)


Last edited by Mona Pereth on 21 May 2021, 10:56 pm, edited 3 times in total.

salad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2011
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,226

21 May 2021, 10:45 pm

Mona Pereth wrote:
To salad:

Thanks for your detailed reply.

I'm well aware of the root problem. I just think the root problem is intractable, and hence, if there is ever to be a lasting peace at all -- and if the majority of Palestinians are ever to have any reasonable chance of a materially good life -- this will be achieved only through outside-the-box thinking.

The unfortunate demographic reality is that more and more Jews believe, more and more fervently, that they have been commanded by God to live in Israel (see aliyah) and that God has given them the right to rule Israel within its original Biblical boundaries -- including all of "Judea and Samaria" -- which includes the West Bank. And this isn't going to change anytime soon. Reason: The Orthodox Jews who believe this tend to have lots and lots of babies, whereas the more left-wing anti-Zionist Jews are having a lot fewer babies. (There are also some anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews, who reject the modern state of Israel on the grounds that it wasn't founded by the Messiah, but they are a small minority, as far as I can tell.)

Additionally, here in the U.S.A., we have a lot of evangelical Christians who see the founding of the state of Israel as a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy, and who believe that the U.S.A. must defend Israel in order to retain God's favor. These Christians constitute our largest single organized religious subculture. They are big enough and well-organized enough to control the Republican Party to a large degree. Even the Democratic Party can't afford to ignore them completely.

Here in the U.S.A. we do have people who sympathize with the Palestinians too, but there's no large organized subculture that makes this a high priority. It's unlikely this will change any time soon either, even with the rise of a somewhat better-organized left here in the U.S.A.

Therefore, it seems to me that the only solution is to:

1) Find some way to give at least 50% of Palestinians at least as prosperous a life, and if possible a better life -- in Lebanon, Jordan, and other neighboring countries -- than they could reasonably have expected to have had even if the state of Israel and all its citizens were somehow to magically evaporate and the Palestinians could all move back to Palestine.

2) Pressure Israel to accept at least some of the remaining Palestinians as Arab citizens of Israel. (And I think Israel would be much more likely to be willing to do this if more Palestinians were to find a satisfactory longterm home outside of Israel/Palestine.)

There would then be the problem of how to protect the civil rights of those new Arab citizens of Israel -- including their right not to be periodically evicted from their homes. This would be something the rest of the Arab world, and the rest of the Muslim world, and leftist movements worldwide, would still need to breathe down Israel's neck about -- but I think it would be many orders of magnitude easier to get results on that issue, within a single Israeli state, than to persuade Israel to give up any land whatsoever to a separate state, at least in the long run. I also think it would be much easier to stop evictions, both in the Palestinian territories and in Israel proper, than to stop settlements altogether, even on vacant lots.

As for the holy places, that's an issue affecting not just the Palestinians but the entire Muslim world. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the holy places are probably safe for the most part, at least in the foreseeable future, except for occasional incidents like the recent one.

Zionist Orthodox Jews do harbor a desire for an eventual "Third Temple" to be built on the Temple Mount. But, as far as I can tell, the vast majority of even the most fanatical Zionists believe that that's something only the forthcoming "Moshiach" (Messiah) is allowed to do. And, if anyone were to come along who was widely accepted by Israeli Jews as "Moshiach," that would drive a big wedge between Israel and its American evangelical Christian supporters, because said "Moshiach" would be seen by most evangelical Christians as the Anti-Christ.

I'll now reply to some specific parts of your post:

salad wrote:
this conflict is about land and land 1st, and so long as Palestinians are being displaced, having their land expropriated, and having their livelihoods uprooted, then their will never ever be peace in Palestine. Ever.

Is it not even theoretically conceivable that there could possibly be any way whatsoever to adequately compensate Palestinians for the loss of the land, in lieu of trying endlessly in vain to hold on to it?

salad wrote:
Palestinians have already tried to make peace with Israel so many times, most notably in Oslo in 1993. The Palestinians, despite being the ones who bore the brunt of Israel's genocide, land theft, and military occupation starting in 1948 and which escalated in 1967, have always been apt to concede and compromise with Israel and give up more only for Israel to still not be satisfied and violate their conditions. In Oslo the Palestinians formally and officially recognized the state of Israel, gave up 4% more land of an already shrunken Palestinian state to Israel (imagine a homeless man being told to give up his clothes as a compromise to not being killed), promised non-violence, and yet what did Israel do?? They were too shallow and stubborn to even recognize a Palestinian state despite the Palestinians being generous enough to do the same for their occupiers, the Israelis didnt even have the decency to recognize a Palestinian state.

Indeed I don't think this is ever going to happen, for reasons I've explained at the top of this post. Hence I believe that continuing to press for it will lead only to endless frustration at best.

salad wrote:
Even worse the main thing the Israelis did promise to the Palestinians, no more settlement construction, the Israelis broke immediately and began to even undermine the Aqsa Mosque, the holiest site in Islam.

Hmm, I'm not aware of exactly what happened at the Aqsa Mosque at that time, and a quick Google search has not helped me find it. Would you be willing to tell me enough specifics to help me look this up? Thank you.


The solution is still going to be the same:

Israel can keep all of the land it originally has but the West Bank and Gaza cant be occupied
No more settlements
No more settlements
....
.....
.........
................
No more settlements

The only controversy I know of is whether the current settlers should be relocated, or if they can stay but future settlements are illegal. However, there is absolutely no way that given how much the Palestinians already gave up to Israel, recognizing Israel when they won't even recognized them, having a fraction of the 1948 borders which themselves were unfair, and more, that any Palestinian worth his salt would just accept it. If Israel is going to act stubborn and refuse basic compromise when Palestinians have been comprising since forever despite the Palestinians being the ones who are the indigenous to this land and not the Israelis, then the Israelis are going to have to deal with more attacks, more stabbings, more rockets, more resistance. There is absolutely no more compromise that can be given.

It's bad enough that in 1948 Israel was allowed 55% of historic Palestine for an immigrant population that was only 33% of Palestine while the indigenous Arabs were given 45% despite being indigenous and 66% of the population

It's bad enough that despite all that Israel annexed 23% more of historic Palestine and expelled 750,000 Palestinians from their homes permanently without right of return

It's bad enough after Israel seized the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights in an illegal 6 Day War that Israel was the aggressor Israel annexed territory illegally against UN Resolution 242, expelled more Palestinians, and injected a hell ton of settlers illegally.

It's bad enough that despite all these transgressions Palestinians still recognized Israel in 1993 when Israel wouldn't even do the same. If the only thing Palestinians asked of Israel, to stop building settlements, something the UN declared illegal in UN Resolution 242 and even Israel Legal Advisor Theodore Meron declared illegal, if Israel cant even to do that despite that being the big thing they promised at Oslo, then Israel can forget about peace because the Palestinians have had enough with compromise and concessions.

This video sums up why peace is impossible if Israel doesnt do its part and actually honors its share of the bargain and stop building settlements and stealing land:


_________________
"One often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it."

Master Oogway


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 77,170
Location: Queens, NYC

21 May 2021, 10:49 pm

I believe the settlements in the West Bank and other places not in Israeli territory should stop being created.



Mona Pereth
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Sep 2018
Age: 63
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,178
Location: New York City (Queens)

21 May 2021, 11:25 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
I believe the settlements in the West Bank and other places not in Israeli territory should stop being created.

What Israel "should" do (within the current international framework) and what kinds of agreements Israel would actually be likely to live up to -- given its internal politics, and given U.S. politics -- are two very different things, alas.

The current framework is just not working. That's why I think a ground-up re-negotiation is needed, taking into account both the political realities I discussed in my previous post and the actual physical security and well-being of the Palestinian people.


_________________
- Autistic in NYC - Resources and new ideas for the autistic adult community in the New York City metro area.
- Autistic peer-led groups (via text-based chat, currently) led or facilitated by members of the Autistic Peer Leadership Group.
- My Twitter (new as of 2021)


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 26,893
Location: temperate zone

22 May 2021, 8:00 am

Yep. It comes down to land.

If my neighbor were firing rockets at me over the fence I would have the urge to retaliate with force.

But if my neighbor were trespassing on my property, and were scheming to steal even more property from me I might retaliate by firing rockets at them.

What can ya say?

In the main both the Palestinians and the Israelies act much the way I would act if I were in their shoes.

But Netanyahu is going too far with allowing new settlements, and thus he is the instigator of this latest crises.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 77,170
Location: Queens, NYC

22 May 2021, 8:41 am

That’s what I say: full two-state solution.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 26,893
Location: temperate zone

22 May 2021, 9:50 am





Mona Pereth
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Sep 2018
Age: 63
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,178
Location: New York City (Queens)

22 May 2021, 10:05 am

naturalplastic wrote:
Yep. It comes down to land.

If my neighbor were firing rockets at me over the fence I would have the urge to retaliate with force.

But if my neighbor were trespassing on my property, and were scheming to steal even more property from me I might retaliate by firing rockets at them.

What can ya say?

Alas, I don't think this cycle will ever stop.

Unless....

In your metaphor, what would happen if the trespassing neighbor offered to buy your house, and at around the same time, what if the neighbor's rich uncle showed up and offered both to (1) subsidize the purchase, so you would get more money, and also (2) sell you a much nicer house down the street, in a quieter part of the neighborhood, at an extraordinarily low price?

Of course, you probably wouldn't trust these offers. If you consider them at all, you would need to take various measures to ensure you don't get ripped off. But, assuming you are able to take such measures and they are ironclad, and assuming you could somehow be assured that your neighbor would have no interest in trespassing on the new property, would you refuse even to consider the offer?


_________________
- Autistic in NYC - Resources and new ideas for the autistic adult community in the New York City metro area.
- Autistic peer-led groups (via text-based chat, currently) led or facilitated by members of the Autistic Peer Leadership Group.
- My Twitter (new as of 2021)


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 26,893
Location: temperate zone

22 May 2021, 10:25 am

Mona Pereth wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Yep. It comes down to land.

If my neighbor were firing rockets at me over the fence I would have the urge to retaliate with force.

But if my neighbor were trespassing on my property, and were scheming to steal even more property from me I might retaliate by firing rockets at them.

What can ya say?

Alas, I don't think this cycle will ever stop.

Unless....

In your metaphor, what would happen if the trespassing neighbor offered to buy your house, and at around the same time, what if the neighbor's rich uncle showed up and offered both to (1) subsidize the purchase, so you would get more money, and also (2) sell you a much nicer house down the street, at an extraordinarily low price?

Of course, you probably wouldn't trust these offers. If you consider them at all, you would need to take various measures to ensure you don't get ripped off. Assuming you are able to take such measures and they are ironclad, and assuming you could somehow be assured that your neighbor would have no interest in trespassing on the new property, would you refuse even to consider the offer?


Arabs dont sell property to Jews in Israel-Palestine.

But if it were done collectively? One whole nation buying off another whole nation at once?

In 1946 I can imagine a way it could have been done. The newly defeated Germany lost territory to Poland that was larger than all of Palestine anyway. So the allies could have kicked Germans out of a Palestine sized area of Germany (that Germans would have been kicked out of any way), moved the entire Arab population of Palestine to this vacated area, and then let the Jews have all of Palestine to themselves. Jews would have Isreal. the province of Pomerania (formerly German, now the north coast of Poland) would be "the Republic of Palestine" ( a new Arab state in the middle of northern europe), and the only looser would be Germany -whose loss of territory to Arabs would be a form of reparations to the Jews for the Holocaust.

But I dont see how an equivalent thing could be done today. :lol:



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 13,403
Location: I'm right here

22 May 2021, 10:27 am

naturalplastic wrote:
Mona Pereth wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Yep. It comes down to land.

If my neighbor were firing rockets at me over the fence I would have the urge to retaliate with force.

But if my neighbor were trespassing on my property, and were scheming to steal even more property from me I might retaliate by firing rockets at them.

What can ya say?

Alas, I don't think this cycle will ever stop.

Unless....

In your metaphor, what would happen if the trespassing neighbor offered to buy your house, and at around the same time, what if the neighbor's rich uncle showed up and offered both to (1) subsidize the purchase, so you would get more money, and also (2) sell you a much nicer house down the street, at an extraordinarily low price?

Of course, you probably wouldn't trust these offers. If you consider them at all, you would need to take various measures to ensure you don't get ripped off. Assuming you are able to take such measures and they are ironclad, and assuming you could somehow be assured that your neighbor would have no interest in trespassing on the new property, would you refuse even to consider the offer?


Arabs dont sell property to Jews in Israel-Palestine.

But if it were done collectively? One whole nation buying off another whole nation at once?

In 1946 I can imagine a way it could have been done. The newly defeated Germany lost territory to Poland that was larger than all of Palestine anyway. So the allies could have kicked Germans out of a Palestine sized area of Germany (that Germans would have been kicked out of any way), moved the entire Arab population of Palestine to this vacated area, and then let the Jews have all of Palestine to themselves. Jews would have Isreal. the province of Pomerania (formerly German, now the north coast of Poland) would be "the Republic of Palestine" ( a new Arab state in the middle of northern europe), and the only looser would be Germany -whose loss of territory to Arabs would be a form of reparations to the Jews for the Holocaust.

But I dont see how an equivalent thing could be done today. :lol:


I fail to see how removing the Palestinians from their homeland then is any less ethnic cleansing than doing it now.

In that scenario why wouldn't all those people from Europe be relocated to New Zion (formerly known as Pomerania) and the Palestinians left alone in their homeland?


_________________
the problem with capitalism is that eventually you run out of other people's resources and cheap labour to exploit
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 26,893
Location: temperate zone

22 May 2021, 11:13 am

funeralxempire wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Mona Pereth wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Yep. It comes down to land.

If my neighbor were firing rockets at me over the fence I would have the urge to retaliate with force.

But if my neighbor were trespassing on my property, and were scheming to steal even more property from me I might retaliate by firing rockets at them.

What can ya say?

Alas, I don't think this cycle will ever stop.

Unless....

In your metaphor, what would happen if the trespassing neighbor offered to buy your house, and at around the same time, what if the neighbor's rich uncle showed up and offered both to (1) subsidize the purchase, so you would get more money, and also (2) sell you a much nicer house down the street, at an extraordinarily low price?

Of course, you probably wouldn't trust these offers. If you consider them at all, you would need to take various measures to ensure you don't get ripped off. Assuming you are able to take such measures and they are ironclad, and assuming you could somehow be assured that your neighbor would have no interest in trespassing on the new property, would you refuse even to consider the offer?


Arabs dont sell property to Jews in Israel-Palestine.

But if it were done collectively? One whole nation buying off another whole nation at once?

In 1946 I can imagine a way it could have been done. The newly defeated Germany lost territory to Poland that was larger than all of Palestine anyway. So the allies could have kicked Germans out of a Palestine sized area of Germany (that Germans would have been kicked out of any way), moved the entire Arab population of Palestine to this vacated area, and then let the Jews have all of Palestine to themselves. Jews would have Isreal. the province of Pomerania (formerly German, now the north coast of Poland) would be "the Republic of Palestine" ( a new Arab state in the middle of northern europe), and the only looser would be Germany -whose loss of territory to Arabs would be a form of reparations to the Jews for the Holocaust.

But I dont see how an equivalent thing could be done today. :lol:


I fail to see how removing the Palestinians from their homeland then is any less ethnic cleansing than doing it now.

In that scenario why wouldn't all those people from Europe be relocated to New Zion (formerly known as Pomerania) and the Palestinians left alone in their homeland?

a) the europeans in question would all be GERMANS...who DESERVED to have their asses kicked out their homes because Germany perpetrated the Holocaust (and Germany was still prostrate and could be pushed around at that time just after defeat), b) the Palestinians would loose one home, but gain another just as good (so it would be fair compensation for loosing their homeland to the Jews in Palestine). (c) the Jews would have Palestine.

So its robbing Peter to pay Paul in return for robbing Paul to pay George, because Paul owes it to George for his crimes against George.

Well... ummm

You gotta BETTER idea? :lol:



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 13,403
Location: I'm right here

22 May 2021, 11:39 am

naturalplastic wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Mona Pereth wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Yep. It comes down to land.

If my neighbor were firing rockets at me over the fence I would have the urge to retaliate with force.

But if my neighbor were trespassing on my property, and were scheming to steal even more property from me I might retaliate by firing rockets at them.

What can ya say?

Alas, I don't think this cycle will ever stop.

Unless....

In your metaphor, what would happen if the trespassing neighbor offered to buy your house, and at around the same time, what if the neighbor's rich uncle showed up and offered both to (1) subsidize the purchase, so you would get more money, and also (2) sell you a much nicer house down the street, at an extraordinarily low price?

Of course, you probably wouldn't trust these offers. If you consider them at all, you would need to take various measures to ensure you don't get ripped off. Assuming you are able to take such measures and they are ironclad, and assuming you could somehow be assured that your neighbor would have no interest in trespassing on the new property, would you refuse even to consider the offer?


Arabs dont sell property to Jews in Israel-Palestine.

But if it were done collectively? One whole nation buying off another whole nation at once?

In 1946 I can imagine a way it could have been done. The newly defeated Germany lost territory to Poland that was larger than all of Palestine anyway. So the allies could have kicked Germans out of a Palestine sized area of Germany (that Germans would have been kicked out of any way), moved the entire Arab population of Palestine to this vacated area, and then let the Jews have all of Palestine to themselves. Jews would have Isreal. the province of Pomerania (formerly German, now the north coast of Poland) would be "the Republic of Palestine" ( a new Arab state in the middle of northern europe), and the only looser would be Germany -whose loss of territory to Arabs would be a form of reparations to the Jews for the Holocaust.

But I dont see how an equivalent thing could be done today. :lol:


I fail to see how removing the Palestinians from their homeland then is any less ethnic cleansing than doing it now.

In that scenario why wouldn't all those people from Europe be relocated to New Zion (formerly known as Pomerania) and the Palestinians left alone in their homeland?

a) the europeans in question would all be GERMANS...who DESERVED to have their asses kicked out their homes because Germany perpetrated the Holocaust (and Germany was still prostrate and could be pushed around at that time just after defeat), b) the Palestinians would loose one home, but gain another just as good (so it would be fair compensation for loosing their homeland to the Jews in Palestine). (c) the Jews would have Palestine.

So its robbing Peter to pay Paul in return for robbing Paul to pay George, because Paul owes it to George for his crimes against George.

Well... ummm

You gotta BETTER idea? :lol:


Yes, as previously stated:

Any Europeans being relocated are moved to New Zion (formerly known as Pomerania) and the Palestinians are left alone in their homeland. If the plan involves stealing Palestine from the Palestinians the plan is no good.


_________________
the problem with capitalism is that eventually you run out of other people's resources and cheap labour to exploit
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


Jiheisho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2020
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,507

22 May 2021, 11:41 am

Peace comes from people wanting equitable solutions. That is not the case here. Absolute world views don't allow for the compromises needed to reach peace. That is true everywhere and especially in Israel and Palestine. It is a sad and bloody history.