Because it wasn’t relevant to my objection. Even if there wouldn’t be lots of killing, claims about a"one state “solution” are obfuscatory. The important point is that the Israelis don’t want to see their nation end and the Palestinians don’t want to be citizens of a federated state with Israel (or what have you).
Claims about a one state “solution” are back door attempts to argue for the end of the state of Israel.
Exactly.
Granted. What I’m saying is that if either were possible peaceably, I’d support either one.
That or it didn’t fit in with another effort to claim someone who was arguing with you would like to see Israel destroyed. Whichever.
And I said neither solution should be forced on them.
I don’t care if Israel maintains its current religous character or demographics. Not a whit. If Israel and Palestine come together on a two-state solution, which is far more likely than the alternative, that would be great. If there were a one-state solution, I would not object to that if and only if all parties supported it. If that alters the character of Israel, that doesn’t matter to me. What I do care about is that they solve their problems already.
:rolleyes:
Nope, it was because it was irrelevant and the one state “solution” is a way to obscure the intent of those who want to end the state of Israel but feel that calling their plan a “solution” makes it sound better.
The clue is that I said it was irrelevant and that the one state “solution”, well, you know the rest.
Would you really be arguing this if someone was talking about a North American Solution that ended the existence of the United States … and someone else pointed out that it did so?
You are the one who brought up destroying a state, presumably via military force. I correctly pointed out that eliminating Israel as a sovereign nation would end it. Do you deny this? And/or do you deny that those who advocate a one state “solution” are advocating a plan that would end Israel?
.
I’ll go out on a limb and say having the place bombed to fuck eighteen months ago did not mean that living conditions got better.
… as a state with an identity based on ethnicity, yes, perhaps. There might even be a name change. But there’s no reason to doubt there would be a state.
But if one state isn’t what Israel wants, why is it working so strenuously to create one?
OK. It’s a lovely thought, but isn’t going to happen. It would be interesting to see how history would have played out if the UN hadn’t voted for partition and had instead set up one state.
I think they (like us) get the government they deserve. If they are truly NOT happy with the status quo, it is up to them to vote in a more moderate government. I won’t reiterate my opinion again-it’s there for all to see. On the Palestinian side, they need to start acting like grown ups and take inflammatory, short-sighted and moronic statements out of their policy statements as well.
No, I am merely pointing out all the different rationales that I have heard over the years (and in this thread) about why “the Jewish people” have a right to settle and govern the land that makes up Palestine, oops, sorry, Israel.
My point is that NONE of them matter. The genii can’t go back in the bottle; the Israeli people (Jews and non-Jews) are there to stay. GIVEN THAT, how about their government starts getting serious about getting along with its neighbors? How about they start by not ghettoizing an entire community (I believe the proper euphemism is “refugee camps”–and just how long have they been around? At least 2 generations…) How about a serious attempt at parity and justice for others who share that territory? And how about NOT crying “victim!” or “Anti-Semitism!” whenever anyone else (ie a country or a person) points out that their policies are short-sighted and self-defeating, IF peace is their aim.
My fault was in using sarcasm to do so. I wrote in to be “heard” in a snotty teenage voice. Next time, I’ll post instructions.
I disagree with this. There are a lot of whack jobs on the internet, so there probably are people who use such a term as some kind of racist code, but I’m with Marley et al–find a damned solution, one state or two–whatever–just stop the damned violence and hatred already. If Northern Ireland can do it, so can these folks. If South Africa can end apartheid without bloodshed (sort of), WTF is wrong with I/P? Saying you favor a one state solution does not mean you want to see the abolition of Israel. Why would you think the one state solution would only go “that way”?
IMO, neither party truly wants peace. And the folks in the neighborhood don’t either…
I truly don’t understand that paranoia that’s out there: there is no plot to wipe Israel off the map. Yes, there exists a deep prejudice against Jewish people in many countries and yes, there is historical precedence. And while that old joke is true: “just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re NOT out to get you”, so is it’s opposite: “just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re out to get you.”
But honestly, I think for most people it’s more of a sad resignation that both sides foment hatred and misunderstanding etc. It’s like watching an endless car crash.
So, by “plot,” you meant… what, exactly?
A plot by people who suggest a one state solution.
It depends on how you mean that. If the dynamic you were drawing was “hadn’t voted for partition and had instead voted for one state”, then the same thing would have happened as the UN did nothing and never intended to, it just made some proclamations.
If you mean that the UN would have either enforced the creation of one state (and stopped Jordan and Egypt from gobbling up parts of it) or actually acted to create two states, then things would have been drastically different.
I’m not talking about any racist code, (although I’m sure that a non-zero number of those making the demand are racists). I’m pointing out that ending the state of Israel and creating a state of Greater Palestine, or what have you, is a backdoor method to simply ending the state of Israel. It’s not a “compromise” position, it was the demand of the Arab powers in 1948 and it’s still the demand of those who refuse to recognize Israel and still have maps with the entire area simply called “Palestine”.
Saying that we should effectively erase the last 60 years of the existence of a nation and just declare that the entire region is “Palestine” is, obviously, a demand that the state of Israel will be done away with. It’s, equally obviously, not a demand that there will be a state of Israel with roughly the same geographic boundaries we have now, and the same system of laws and government, but that state will be absorbed into another one. If, at no point during the last 62 years, the absorption of Israel into someone else’s country was palatable, why will it be now that they’re had a sovereign nation for more than half a century?
“We don’t want to end Israel! We just want the state known as Israel to end!” is, shall we say, less than convincing.
There have been numerous ‘damned solutions’ offered. The acceptance of the Peel Commission partition plan, the acceptance of the UN partition plan, the acceptance of peace along the armistice lines before 1967, ~96% of the Palestinians territorial demands with Final Status issues to be settled at future negotiating cycles…
Throwing up your hands and simply saying “well, gee, why isn’t it fixed!” is an abrogation of your responsibility to analyze the situation, not an analysis of it.
As for why saying one nation doesn’t mean abolishing Israel, of course it does. Both factions, Israelis and Palestinians, have wanted self determination for decades now. Saying that neither gets self determination is not a solution. Ensuring that they both do, is.
Helen Thomas asked the press secretaries and presidents the important questions for decades. She did not cater to them and often got answers that were revealing and interesting. She asked the questions you might have thought of during press conferences. She did the American citizens a lot of good for a very long time. We will miss having a person who is not afraid to face presidential wrath.
Oh, god–what did I do to deserve a Brickering? :rolleyes: Since I have no desire to discuss anything with you, I think I’ll just mess with your head.
Yes, every Muslim country, every predominantly Christian country, every pagan/heathen country wants only ONE thing: the eradication of every Jew on the planet. And they will not rest, no matter what, until that sweet, sweet day is here. Because Jews were put on this world to unite others in hatred for them. By George, you’ve got it!* You found them out and have foiled their dastardly plan. Thank god the world has people like you, to keep the rest of us on the concrete operational level.
Maybe this will make sense to you (a faint hope since you don’t understand metaphor or analogy): IMO, the statements of Hamas are a lot like the platform of the GOP re abortion and Roe v Wade. They talk a “good game”, but they don’t seriously want to abolish a woman’s right to choose. Oh, they’ve curtailed and made it difficult, but the right remains.
Now for the love of humanity, don’t hijack this train-wreck to parse my analogy. I’ll preempt you by saying this: you’re wrong, but you have a right to your own opinion.
*for the humor and sarcasm impaired, an asterisk to show examples of both.
Finn-so, if I understand you correctly, you are in favor of a 2 state solution, but find a single state non-viable?
It never occurred to me to have Israel abolished–like I said, that ship has sailed. We can all sit here and wouldacouldashoulda all day long, to no avail. What needs to happen for peace is real commitment, real beginnings of trust on both parts. Neither side has any moral superiority (and neither has taken the high road).
I don’t know how to get to the solution, but I do know that if both parties are invested in coming to an agreement, an agreement can be reached. And seriously, I’m a Midwestern soccer mom–just WTF do you want me to do? I have analyzed the situation*–it is one giant clusterfuck of tragedy and hate.
*to the best of my ability, interest and attention span. I am much more worried about the oil spill and the possibility that my youngest son may have pneumonia than I am of ME peace. ME peace is almost an oxymoron. You probably won’t get this allusion because it’s not a part of your life, but ME peace to me is like the BSN being the minimal entry degree for RNs here. It sure would make things better all 'round, but it ain’t gonna happen. Nursing has been kicking that around when my mother was a student nurse, when I was (20 years ago) and today. It ain’t gonna happen because, even though it would be a win-win for all, nobody wants it enough to push for it.
I can’t help but think that the same is true for the Israeli and the Palestinians.
Believing the Jews should leave Israel doesn’t make you hate Jews, either.
Yep.
There is no doubting that. And at this point it’s rather a waste of time to even try to disupte this. Anyone born in a country is that “ethnicity”. Much the same as I am a New Zealander, which has little to do with my family tree. (which is a mixture of Scots, German and I think Welsh).
More to the point though, if you polled Israel in 1963, what would the identifial ethnic origin be? And how can this be quantified? Someone mentioned “Russian Jews” and there are also American Jews, Slavic Jews, Iranian Jews - what is the idnentifiable enthnicity these people share? What binds them beyond a shared POLITICAL (and /or religious) identity?
Well, there’s been a lot of shared history - both before 1943, and in the 47 years since. Adversity has a way of unifying people, and an “us-versus-them” attitude (which I’m afraid we suffer from) tends to sharpen the definition of “us”. Israel isn’t so much as a melting pot as it is a forge.
There’s also the issue of language, as well as a myriad of cutural signifiers and unique sociological aspects. Based on my familiarity with other cultures, I’d say that Israelis display as much cultural “distinctiveness” as, say, the French or the Japanese.
Sure, we have our share of idiots and ideologues on our side, too. I hope you don’t see me as one of them
It’s not a euphamism, and the inhabitants of the camps are free to leave at any time; they’re being kept there by their leaders, by the UN and in many cases by their own sense of victimhood. Israel would love nothing more than to see those cesspools of festering hatred dissolved once and for all.
I admit that Israel prevents many Palestinians from crossing over the Green Line into Israel proper, but any nation has a right to allow whoever it wants past its borders, and no-one else.
Justice, I think is a hard thing to define. The tragedy of the conflict is that all sides believe that they’ve been wrong. IMHO, it’s this demand for justice that is keeping the peace process back - you can have peace, or you can have justicem but I’m not sure you can have both.
In my experience - and you can correct me if I’m wrong - most (not all) of the people crying “victim” or “antisemitism” aren’t Israelis but Israel supporters, who have issues of their own. BY and large, Israelis don’t think of themselves as victims (to many, it’s another word for “loser”), and we certainly aren’t as obsessed with antisemitism as our cousins overseas. Personally, I rarely if ever accuse anyone of that, simply because I believe that it is such a severe accusation - tantamount to an accusation muder or pedophillia - that I loathe to make it unless I am absolutely sure. To the best of my knowledge, there are just two actual antisemite who regularly post on these boards.