Israelistine?

[al-Hasani]

For years "at least 25 years" Iran has suggested that a referendom could be the best solution for this conflict.... All Palestinians outside and inside with all people who reside in Palestine participate and ballot for their government, any possible outcome should be respected by all countries .... it's a democratic solution which means no more war .

There is no need for any ballots as it is obvious that 99,9% of all Palestinians inside Palestine or abroad want their own country. The problem is that Israel for obvious reasons is not interested in a real two-state solution which there are thousands of examples of and this is why they have been ignoring the Arab Peace Initiative for over 10 years now despite it being the most comprehensive peace proposal to date.

Arab Peace Initiative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Keep them ideas coming before solomon shows up

Please keep him out. He would probably end up speaking about the "evil Arabs" yet again or something along those lines. The same old song in other words and accusing me of influencing the Pakistani public (LOL) in a wrong way.

I don't deny that many Palestinians living in Israel are content (big surprise when the alternative could be Gaza) but at the end of the day they also want their own country. I mean why is this even questioned by anyone nowadays? The Jews don't want a one-state solution as this would mean that they would become the minority and they are not interested in giving up their only Jewish country either. This leaves us with a two-state solution. Now that's the easiest part of all this. Defining the borders and all that follows with a two-state solution is the main problem here and no side really wants to move from their initial position.

Wouldn't happen in a million years. The Israelis' will give up on democracy before they give up on being a Jewish State. The reason being, contrary to one poster's comment about the, "Jews repulsed by being with other people", the history has been the opposite of that; anti-Jewsih pogroms, second class status in Christian and Muslim countries, the Holocaust, etc. The State of Israel is their insurance policy that Jews around the world will always have a Jewish state for them to flee to. They are never going to give that up.

Actually I can only speak for the Arab world here but most Arabs and Jews lived peacefully with each other for the vast majority of the time and Jews were actually not second class citizens at all. Unlike in the majority of European history. The Jews preferred to live in the Arab-controlled Al-Andalus for 900 years rather than anywhere else in Europe and when the Catholics regained Iberia they also exiled not only the Muslims but also the Jews and many of those Jews including Muslim Arabs/Berbers/Moriscos sought refugee in the Ottoman Empire and other Muslim controlled countries of the day.

Anyway what you say is correct hence why there is no need to discuss something such as a one-state solution. The Palestinians are as eager to have their own country and rightfully so.

 

[MarkovChain]

Wouldn't happen in a million years. The Israelis' will give up on democracy before they give up on being a Jewish State. The reason being, contrary to one poster's comment about the, "Jews repulsed by being with other people", the history has been the opposite of that; anti-Jewish pogroms, second class status in Christian and Muslim countries, the Holocaust, etc. The State of Israel is their insurance policy that Jews around the world will always have a Jewish state for them to flee to. They are never going to give that up.

Exactly. Additionally, even if there was a two state solution, there is no guarantee that an organization like Hamas being at the helm will not attempt to threaten Israel in the future.

Israel is winning in keeping opposition at bay currently, in spite of being surrounded - not sure why they would want to give up anyway.

 

[Archdemon]

If the Israelis give up their state sanctioned policy of demographic engineering to maintain a jewish majority and Zionism while Falistni arabs too decide to give up seeking independance to integrate into a new nation state built on equality and fairness for all citizens, Jewish and Arabs alike. Can a country called Israelistine made up of these dynamics work under a national inegration program similar to the one started by Nelson Mandela? - How about just share Yerushelum rather than dividing it?

If both sides don't reconcile their differences, they will always be open to foreign interest minipulation. Two state solution is a failure and only way Israel can survive in the long term is by discarding Zionism to build a country with Arabs on the principles of pluralism.

Thoughts?

Arabs and pluralism ? Democracy? Doesnt go together.

 

[Desertfalcon]

Actually I can only speak for the Arab world here but most Arabs and Jews lived peacefully with each other for the vast majority of the time and Jews were actually not second class citizens at all. Unlike in the majority of European history. The Jews preferred to live in the Arab-controlled Al-Andalus for 900 years rather than anywhere else in Europe and when the Catholics regained Iberia they also exiled not only the Muslims but also the Jews and many of those Jews including Muslim Arabs/Berbers/Moriscos sought refugee in the Ottoman Empire and other Muslim controlled countries of the day.

I respect your opinion and I think in general, what you say is correct, particularly in describing that the Jews were treated far more harshly and unjustly in Christian lands but all non-Muslims in Islamic lands were officially, second class citizens in that they generally had to pay extra a specific extra tax levelled on non-Muslims, could never hold positions superior to any Islamic official, were considered inferior and despite much greater tolerance in general under Muslim rule, there were exceptions such as the attempt to forced conversions to Islam in Yemen, etc.

No matter how tolerant the treatment under Islam however, the Jews learned through many centuries that they could never fully depend on others for their security.

 

[al-Hasani]

I respect your opinion and I think in general, what you say is correct, particularly in describing that the Jews were treated far more harshly and unjustly in Christian lands but all non-Muslims in Islamic lands were officially, second class citizens in that they generally had to pay extra a specific extra tax levelled on non-Muslims, could never hold positions superior to any Islamic official, were considered inferior and despite much greater tolerance in general under Muslim rule, there were exceptions such as the attempt to forced conversions to Islam in Yemen, etc.

No matter how tolerant the treatment under Islam however, the Jews learned through many centuries that they could never fully depend on others for their security.

Well in those times rights were not something you got but fought for and even the ordinary Muslim was not well off compared to the standards of our age. We always need to look at the realities of certain time periods of human history. What was considered developed 2000 BC would be considered very primitive just 1000 years ago.

I am just saying that the Arab-Jewish animosity, aside from small periods of initial Islamic history, and the one in the past 150 years, has largely been peaceful and a clear evidence of cooperation. In fact I don't think that any historian will dispute the fact that Jews lived better in Muslim lands than in Christian lands for most of their history.

Actually the Jizya is a rather complex system and much more complicated than how you describe it with all due respect and often that law was not followed fully. It also had it's positives for the non-Muslims such as physical protection and rights in terms of practicing their own religions which was extremely rare in the Christian world not more than 250 years ago. Actually Yemen is a bad example because Yemeni Jews and Muslims lived alongside each other for a very, very long time without many incidents. Nowadays it is different but there is still a Jewish community in Yemen albeit very small compared to past communities. Most Yemeni Jews now live in Israel.

Basically the animosity between Arabs/Jews/Muslims first really kicked off during the foundation of Israel. I mean you only have to ask the few remaining Muslim and Jewish elders of Jerusalem etc. how they treated each other or how Arab Jews lived in Arab Muslim lands.

I think that many Europeans, due to the Holocaust, have a misconception of the Jews having lived through something similar in the Arab world which is totally wrong.

 

[raptor22]

I respect your opinion and I think in general, what you say is correct, particularly in describing that the Jews were treated far more harshly and unjustly in Christian lands but all non-Muslims in Islamic lands were officially, second class citizens in that they generally had to pay extra a specific extra tax levelled on non-Muslims, could never hold positions superior to any Islamic official, were considered inferior and despite much greater tolerance in general under Muslim rule, there were exceptions such as the attempt to forced conversions to Islam in Yemen, etc.

No matter how tolerant the treatment under Islam however, the Jews learned through many centuries that they could never fully depend on others for their security.

Being Opperesed doesn't entitle you to oppress others, if they wanted a place to live peacefully why here? why Palestine should pay for it?

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

If the Israelis give up their state sanctioned policy of demographic engineering to maintain a jewish majority and Zionism while Falistni arabs too decide to give up seeking independance to integrate into a new nation state built on equality and fairness for all citizens, Jewish and Arabs alike. Can a country called Israelistine made up of these dynamics work under a national inegration program similar to the one started by Nelson Mandela? - How about just share Yerushelum rather than dividing it?

If both sides don't reconcile their differences, they will always be open to foreign interest minipulation. Two state solution is a failure and only way Israel can survive in the long term is by discarding Zionism to build a country with Arabs on the principles of pluralism.

Thoughts?

Other examples of multi-ethnic or multi-sectarian states:
1) Yugoslavia
2) USSR
3) Lebanon
4) India
5) Turkey
6) Belgium
7) Iraq
8) In a sense, the UK, Spain, France

Et cetera.

Even Quebec tried to exit Canada. The inevitable conclusion is that different ethnicities/religious groups/nationalities will always want their own countries, and pushing them together usually leads to tension, conflict, or outright failure. The trend is towards fragmentation, not unity.

Gaddafi's Isratine is not just an impractical idea, it's essentially a call for decades-long ethnic strife followed by break-up anyway.

 

[Kompromat]

Arabs and pluralism ? Democracy? Doesnt go together.

Similar things can be stated about the Jewd too. 70 years of finger pointing had lead middle east where it is.

 

[al-Hasani]

Other examples of multi-ethnic or multi-sectarian states:
1) Yugoslavia
2) USSR
3) Lebanon
4) India
5) Turkey
6) Belgium
7) Iraq
8) In a sense, the UK, Spain, France

Et cetera.

Even Quebec tried to exit Canada. The inevitable conclusion is that different ethnicities/religious groups/nationalities will always want their own countries, and pushing them together usually leads to tension, conflict, or outright failure. The trend is towards fragmentation, not unity.

Gaddafi's Isratine is not just an impractical idea, it's essentially a call for decades-long ethnic strife followed by break-up anyway.

Eh, basically all Arab countries are somewhat multi-ethnic. That's not the point here.

Yugoslavia lasted 45 years before it collapsed. USSR lasted less than 80 years before it collapsed. Lebanon has existed for less than 100 years although it can be considered the successor state of the Phoenicians.

India is a new creation. Less than 70 years old.

Turkey in its current form is also less than 100 years old.

Belgium was a creation that is less than 200 years old. Iraq similarly.

Spain is less than 550 years old. UK is less than 300 years old. The borders of France have also been changing for a very long time.

What is common with all those examples is that the ethnic groups in all of those countries have had their own countries before they were absorbed by the central powers. All this happened AGES ago while the Palestinians suddenly lost their own country 70 years ago. Long after the "era of conquests".

Thus you are comparing apples and pears. Comparable examples are USSR and Yugoslavia were two powerful central powers (Russians and Serbs) annexed all the others and everyone can see how that ended…..

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Eh, basically all Arab countries are somewhat multi-ethnic. That's not the point here.

Yugoslavia lasted 45 years before it collapsed. USSR lasted less than 80 years before it collapsed. Lebanon has existed for less than 100 years although it can be considered the successor state of the Phoenicians.

India is a new creation. Less than 70 years old.

Turkey in its current form is also less than 100 years old.

Belgium was a creation that is less than 200 years old. Iraq similarly.

Spain is less than 550 years old. UK is less than 300 years old. The borders of France have also been changing for a very long time.

What is common with all those examples is that the ethnic groups in all of those countries have had their own countries before they were absorbed by the central powers. All this happened AGES ago while the Palestinians suddenly lost their own country 70 years ago. Long after the "era of conquests".

Thus you are comparing apples and pears. Comparable examples are USSR and Yugoslavia were two powerful central powers (Russians and Serbs) annexed all the others and everyone can see how that ended…..

I don't follow. First, you list countries that you believe to be young, and thus... that's why they are prone to fragmentation? Does that counter my point?

Palestine is different, true, but that's because there has never been a sovereign country called Palestine. Palestine is the name that the Arabs in the area wish to call their enclave, which is fine, but not much distinguishes it from Jordan, which could (and did, until 1967) just as easily serve the role of "Palestine." Still, not sure how this contradicts the point I've made.

Your last point about the USSR and Yugoslavia: examples of multi-ethnic societies held together unnaturally by authoritarianism. Again, I'm not sure how this contradicts my point, unless you are calling for a dictatorship to unify Isratine. Why do you feel that would be advantageous vs. the current intractable situation?

 

[al-Hasani]

I don't follow. First, you list countries that you believe to be young, and thus... that's why they are prone to fragmentation? Does that counter my point?

Palestine is different, true, but that's because there has never been a sovereign country called Palestine. Palestine is the name that the Arabs in the area wish to call their enclave, which is fine, but not much distinguishes it from Jordan, which could (and did, until 1967) just as easily serve the role of "Palestine." Still, not sure how this contradicts the point I've made.

Your last point about the USSR and Yugoslavia: examples of multi-ethnic societies held together unnaturally by authoritarianism. Again, I'm not sure how this contradicts my point, unless you are calling for a dictatorship to unify Isratine. Why do you feel that would be advantageous vs. the current intractable situation?

Eh, did you read my last part of my post? I basically explained why your examples do not work in the case of Palestine. Read it again. Read the last 4.5 lines.

Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Palesitne was a province under various pre-Islamic Arab and non-Arab (mostly entirely fellow Semitic kingdoms/empires) for a very, very long time and after the appearance of Islam it was almost always an independent region which was part of a greater empire. Palestinians as a people also have the biggest claim on ancient pre-Islamic kingdoms/civilizations native to modern-day Palestine.

Because of the reasons I stated earlier and those of @Desertfalcon . None of the parties are really interested in such a solution either. In theory it might work. I am not saying that. It's just not foreseeable and your examples of multi-ethnic states are not going to change that.

22% of Israel's population are Palestinians and Israel itself is one of the most diverse societies with Jewish Arabs from Yemen to Morocco in great numbers, Polish/Russian Jews, Ethiopian Jews etc. so multi-ethnicity is not a problem here.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Eh, did you read my last part of my post? I basically explained why your examples do not work in the case of Palestine. Read it again. Read the last 4.5 lines.

Palesitne was a province under various pre-Islamic Arab and non-Arab (mostly entirely fellow Semitic kingdoms/empires) for a very, very long time and after the appearance of Islam it was almost always an independent region which was part of a greater empire. Palestinians as a people also have the biggest claim on ancient pre-Islamic kingdoms/civilizations native to modern-day Palestine.

Sure, I read your post, and I countered that Palestine has never been a sovereign state. I agree it's not like the others, because the invention of the Palestinian identity has been recent, vs. the centuries of ethnic/religion/cultural/national identities that have been present in my other examples. What I am trying to figure out is what you intend to imply by this. Does that mean that Palestinians are more easily amalgamated into another country, unlike the failed/failing states I presented in my examples? Why would the Palestinians agree to this? Why would the Israelis?

Because of the reasons I stated earlier and those of @Desertfalcon . None of the parties are really interested in such a solution either. In theory it might work. I am not saying that. It's just not foreseeable and your examples of multi-ethnic states are not going to change that.

I agree completely, so I'm at a loss over our point of contention. We seem to be of the same mind.

22% of Israel's population are Palestinians and Israel itself is one of the most diverse societies with Jewish Arabs from Yemen to Morocco in great numbers etc. so multi-ethnicity is not a problem here.

The problem with Israel's multi-ethnicity vs. say, the United States, is that Israel defines itself (per @Desertfalcon 's excellent point) as the Jewish State, the last refuge of Jews in an otherwise hostile world. That's the "why" for Israel. The "where" is because of the biblical/historical connection to Judaism, which had the unfortunate side effect of fomenting conflict with the Arabs in the area. It's important that we separate the "why" from the "where," because only anti-Semites oppose the "why," whereas reasonable people were able to oppose the "where" for principled reasons (now that its existence is a fait accompli, I do not believe that continued opposition to Israel's existence is principled).

Meanwhile, the United States defines itself through the ideals put forth in the Declaration of Independence, more or less along the lines of liberty and self-rule. The United States' implicit colorblind invitation ("come one and all, no matter your background, as long as you agree with these ideas") explain its success as an immigrant society, whereas Israel's Judaeo-centric mission precludes its success as a multi-cultural society.

In short, I believe Israel succeeds as a multi-cultural society only because one group heavily dominates, akin to the authoritarianism model we discussed earlier (Yugoslavia, USSR, etc.). Turkey is no different. Isratine would eliminate that dominance and create a country of approximately equal-sized groups. Lebanon (and even Belgium) do not provide hope that such a model would lead to a well-run or stable country.

I think we all agree that a two state solution is the least of all evils, and should be pursued.

 

[al-Hasani]

Sure, I read your post, and I countered that Palestine has never been a sovereign state. I agree it's not like the others, because the invention of the Palestinian identity has been recent, vs. the centuries of ethnic/religion/cultural/national identities that have been present in my other examples. What I am trying to figure out is what you intend to imply by this. Does that mean that Palestinians are more easily amalgamated into another country, unlike the failed/failing states I presented in my examples? Why would the Palestinians agree to this? Why would the Israelis?



I agree completely, so I'm at a loss over our point of contention. We seem to be of the same mind.



The problem with Israel's multi-ethnicity vs. say, the United States, is that Israel defines itself (per @Desertfalcon 's excellent point) as the Jewish State, the last refuge of Jews in an otherwise hostile world. That's the "why" for Israel. The "where" is because of the biblical/historical connection to Judaism, which had the unfortunate side effect of fomenting conflict with the Arabs in the area. It's important that we separate the "why" from the "where," because only anti-Semites oppose the "why," whereas reasonable people were able to oppose the "where" for principled reasons (now that its existence is a fait accompli, I do not believe that continued opposition to Israel's existence is principled).

Meanwhile, the United States defines itself through the ideals put forth in the Declaration of Independence, more or less along the lines of liberty and self-rule. The United States' implicit colorblind invitation ("come one and all, no matter your background, as long as you agree with these ideas") explain its success as an immigrant society, whereas Israel's Judaeo-centric mission preclude its success as a multi-cultural society.

In short, I believe Israel succeeds as a multi-cultural society only because one group heavily dominates, akin to the authoritarianism model we discussed earlier (Yugoslavia, USSR, etc.). Turkey is no different. Isratine would eliminate that dominance and create a country of approximately equal-sized groups. Lebanon (and even Belgium) do not provide hope that such a model would lead to a well-run or stable country.

I think we all agree that a two state solution is the least of all evils, and should be pursued.

Well, the Palestinians themselves will claim that there has always been a state called Palestine (regardless of who controlled it) which was/is their homeland. Also whether "Palestine" as a state has existed or not can be discussed and depends on how you look at it. Did a state called "Sham/Levant" ever exist? A state called "Mesopotamia"? A state called "Arabia" etc.?

Who told you that Palestinians are a recent "invention"? No people are an "invention". It's just the names that change. By that logic 90% of all the current countries of today are inventions if they need to have a certain age before they become "legitimate".

I am just saying that the Jews and Palestinians have no reason to agree on a one-state solution. I mean the entire conflict is about two peoples that want their own two countries but they cannot agree on how to split.

Arabs are Semites too like many other extinct peoples and extant peoples. Just so you know.

Which group dominates in Israel? Do you mean the Jews as the group? Because in terms of ethnicity then Israel is one of the most mixed countries out there. I mean by now most have both Arab Jewish ancestry and Jewish European ancestry.

Israel is a multi-ethnic state because Jews are a multi-ethnic people. Israel was founded upon the idea of a Jewish homeland. It was founded less than 70 years ago and its foundation meant that the native Palestinians (or at least people who lived there before most of the Jews arrived) lost their own land and were confined (largely) to what is now the West Bank and Gaza.

If this had happened 300 years ago nobody would have protested because back then territories were conquered left and right. I mean that's how the US came to an existence. I mean the Native Americans can be counted on a few hands nowadays.

But the Palestine-Israel conflict is more recent. There is no other similar case out there to compare with either which makes it a unique case.

But what must be clear is this. If Israel has the right to exist why does Palestine not have a similar right?

 

[Jaanbaz]

In another 100 years there will nothing called Palestine. The rate at which Israel is taking over Palestinian lands.

 

[500]

For years "at least 25 years" Iran has suggested that a referendom could be the best solution for this conflict.... All Palestinians outside and inside with all people who reside in Palestine participate and ballot for their government, any possible outcome should be respected by all countries .... it's a democratic solution which means no more war .

Mullahs for democracy. Joke of the century.