(1) What exactly is the position of the Israeli ultra-conservatives on WHICH land was promised the Jews by God? I gather it goes right up to the Jordan, but-- Is the western limit definitely the sea coast? What about northward and southward? (I’m thinking these borders are simply what was established by the historical processes that led to the old British mandate, and may have nothing to do with the scriptural promise.) Could those who want a “broader” Israel on biblical grounds agree to a “narrower” one?
(2) Outside of Jerusalem, do the Palestinians recognizea lot of sacred Islamic sites in the occupied territories, or inside Israel proper? (In other words, is this a Kosovo-like situation?)
If the answers to these questions are “right,” maybe something like the following has merit.
Let a multinational coalition (including the US, various Arab states, etc) “lease” or even “purchase” a certain amount of land from those nations adjacent to the presently occupied territories: primarily from Jordan. The total acreage should be equal in amount to that of the existent territories. The express purpose would be to establish a workable Palestinian homeland therein. The present territories would become part of Israel (to the extent that they fall on the biblical mandate to the Jews).
A distinct Muslim-dominated coalition would provide security-police-defense forces for Palestine for, say, 30 years.
There would be full international recognition of Israel within the new borders.
The Israelis who look for a biblical definition of the Promised Land are a minority. A loud, vocal, and active minority, but still a significant minority. Most Israelis would be very happy to trade land for peace IF they thought they could trust the trade. That is, most Israelis do NOT trust the Palestinians to respect a peace treaty.
And the notion of setting up a separate land somewhere (in Jordan, say) has been tried – that’s how the state of Jordan was formed in the first place. The Palestinians have rejected that approach.
My own thought: the U.S. pay for evacuating Cyprus. All the Turks sent to Turkey, all the Greeks sent to Greece. Then the population of Northern Ireland be split, the Catholics to Ireland and the Protestants to Cyprus. Then you move the Palestinians to Northern Ireland and bingo! Home free!
The Ultra Conservatives pretty much lay claim to all the land Israel currently controls.
2)There are many Muslim holy sites in Israel and the Occupied Territories.
The idea you propose is a favourite among the Israeli extreme right, but completely unworkable and would probably provoke an all out regional war. What is wrong with a Palestinian homeland in the area that they currently occupy?
C K Dexter Haven is wrong to say that Jordan was an attempt at a Palestinian homeland. It became seperate as soon as the Mandate was founded and seperated the area to which Jews were allowed to emmigrate to under the Balfour declaration.
“The Israelis who look for a biblical definition of the Promised Land are a minority. A loud, vocal, and active minority, but still a significant minority.” No doubt. But I wonder if there can ever be “peaceful coexistence” between Israel and the Palestinians if a significant minority in Israel effectively views the latter as not only squatting on Israeli property, but literally offending the Lord G-d himself. (Furthermore, some may regard it as an offense to refrain from doing whatever is necessary to take said property from the–irony coming!–Palestinian “infidels.”)
The issue here is not what God may or may not have promised, but rather what a significant faction believes they are morally obliged to do. They may not have enough numbers to win votes and make laws; what they CAN do is violate civilly-recognized national boundaries and do everything possible to make life miserable for the Palestinians west of the Jordan.
So a “land for peace” agreement gets itself signed. What then? Will Israel physically seal-off the border–20-foot walls, land-mines, radar “fenses,” heavily-armored patrols…not to keep the Palestinians out, but ultra-conservative Israelis IN? Would any conceivable government of Israel be willing to jail 5-10% of its own population on charges of “subversive acts against the national interest” or somesuch–referring to those determined to slip into the new Palestine state to undermine it?
In other words, these agreements may not be worth the toner they’re printed-out with if the “biblical mandate” is just ignored.
(I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying the ultra-conservatives are “right,” only that their commitments make it impossible for them to give up…AND there’s a lot of 'em.)
So, is the situation SYMMETRICAL? Do the Palestinians believe that Allah promised Palestine to them? If so, does the promise include all of the present Israel, or the west bank, or just a part of the west bank, or what? If there’s some wiggle room there, the Palestinians may ultimately find it most prudent to accept settlement EAST of the Jordan. Yes, I know this looks like just a typical ruse designed to put a big thumb on the Israeli side of the scale; it isn’t.
That is what’s wrong with a Palestinian homeland in the area that they currently occupy, MC, IMHO. If the goal is peace and prosperity, I just don’t see how it could happen unless there is a radical change in what I’ll punningly call the ground state.
Scott Dickerson, the problem is this offer would be point-blank refused by all the Arab states, especially Jordan, also the Palestinians would refuse to move and you would have to move them forciably (note: large scale forciable movemnts of people like this fall into the catergory of crimes against humanity).
As Noam Chompsky pointed out you might as well propose the movement of all the Israelis to New York.
Your’re also massively playing up the size of the Ultra-Orthodox Israelis in the equation.
A viable peace plan should not mean the forciablre movement of millions of people and the all-out regional war it would bring.
“…Your’re also massively playing up the size of the Ultra-Orthodox Israelis in the equation.”
Do you happen to have any stats on how many Israeli citizens are committed to the position that the west bank belongs to the Jews by divine mandate? And to what degree? Though I throw around terms like “ultra-conservative” loosely, I had thought this was fairly central to mainstream Judaism (the goal, that is, not the illegal means). Wasn’t that the basic idea behind the Zionist movement–to reclaim the promised lands for the Jews?
If not, why is the fate of the “settlers” such a political hot potato in Israel?
Also–not a comment just to you, M–something about the supposed ludicrousness of resettling the Palestinians in adjacent regions doesn’t connect for me.
>Isn’t their current habitation already the result of resettlement, into lands toward which they have no great historical commitment?
>Isn’t the die-hard-with-a-bullet attitude equally an impediment to peaceful coexistence in a west bank Palestinian state as proposed? (The point being: on what basis would one assume that the Palestinians would find acceptible ANY outcome compatible with the existence of Israel?)
>Exactly what is meant by “regional war”? The Saudis bombing buildings in New York? The use of weapons of mass destruction against the US and Israel? France and Germany mobilizing against the US/Israeli axis? Seems to me the US is in a position to impose whatever resolution it finds reasonable and sustainable. (Seems to me demonstrating our capacity to do same was a big part of the recent war.)
The present stalemate is surely a human tragedy for the Palestinian people. I’m afraid a short-sighted “paper solution” won’t bring that tragedy to a close.
It’s realism, not triumphalism, to point the weaker side in the direction of concessions.
Israel’s governmental system is set up so that a party with even a small base of support can get into the Knesset. Because neither major parties (Likud and Labor/One Israel) have enough support to get a majority in the Knesset, they both need to form coaltions to govern. so both parties worry about offending the other parties in their coalition, because if the party withdraws from the government, the government’s position is in trouble. So the settlers have more power than you’d expect from their size.
Not particularly. They just consider ancient Jewish claims irrelevant and stand on the ground that they were there and they were ousted ( I’m not addressing the rightness of this claim, mind you, just describing a motivation ).
East of the Jordan, is Jordan. Though Jordan now has a Palestinian majority, historically it was settled by Circassians ( now mostly Arabized, I’m sure ) and Bedouin who are culturally distinct from the Palestinians, are historically loyal to the Hashemite regime and have a reputation of looking down their nose at Palestinians. The Hashemites ( who have historically treated Palestinians as distinctly second-class, though that is probably changing ) are certainly not going to surrender their monarchy to a bunch of Palestinian nationalists and said nationalists don’t want to be ruled by a Hashemite king.
Jordan WILL NOT part with land. They only gave up the West Bank to the PLO after considerable arm-twisting by the Arab League and some big bribes from the Gulf States ( though 'm sure they wouldn’t take back that headache now if they were offered ). Therein, I’m afraid, lies the failure of your idea. You’re assuming more pan-Arab idealism than actually exists.
You’re quite possibly correct ( about the prospects of peace and prosperity, that is ). Unfortunately as bleak as the situation is, there is no better alternative.
I’ll invoke Alessan here, who probably has a better grasp on the politics on the ground in Israel today. But it is my understanding is that the religiously extreme view is very much a minority position.
Not quite. Many early Zionist thinkers were athiests. The issue was not so much a reclamation of the Holy Land as it was establishing a simple homeland somewhere. Israel offered the most attraction, primarily due to the historical connections ( but also due in part to the weakness and relative passivity of the Ottomans ). But it wasn’t the only site considered - Uganda and Argentina were also suggested.
I think that as time went on and Israel became a reality, the religious angle became much more prominent. Even so, I think many secular Jews would claim a historical/cultural connection to Israel, without necessarily emphasizing the religious aspect ( though to be sure its a fine dividing line ).
In Lebanon and Jordan, yes. In the West Bank and Gaza, no. Though there are certainly refugees ( or descendants of refugees ) in those areas, they formed part of the contiguous area settled by the Arabs that we refer to as Palestinians today. North of the Litani and East of the Jordan the population was culturally a bit distinct.
Yep. But the hope is that the “die-hard-with-a-bullet” faction would be weakened and could eventually be marginalized by the establishment of a separate Palestinian state on those lands. Maybe realistic, maybe not. But there are precious few long-term practical alternatives. THE Palestinians is probably an improper turn of phrase in this case. Some will certainly not be satisfied, some would.
A regional war would presume a conflict between Israel and all or most of their immediate neighbors directly, with perhaps indirect aid from more distant Arab states ( and probably indirect aid from the U.S. to Israel ). Israel can certainly win such a conflict short term, but it probably cannot take and hold large chunks indefinitely. It simply lacks the manpower to do so.
It’s realism that suggests that totally one-sided concessions only strengthens the “die-hard-with-a-bullet” factions’ hands.
First, the well watered areas run out quite rapidly east of the Jordan river, and the lands are already quite taken up. Most of Jordan is scrub desert.
Second, Palestinians even in Jordan do not want to be Jordanian in large part, so you’ve got a non-starter idea to start with.
It really helps to have some basic knowledge before making proposals.
I’m sorry Scott Dickerson but your position comes from a lack of awareness of the poltics in Israel and the Arab world. Your solution is to simply to give into all the demands of the extremists on one side, the transfer solution isn’t even popular in Israel with many regarding it as racist.
Fighting a destablized Iraq and deposing an unpopualr dictator is one thing but fighting a war against all the Arab states (and possibly other Muslim states as far as field as Pakistan) for a popular cause is another.
If it really is for the benefit of the Palestinians, how would you propose to move them without killing large percentages of their population?
I don’t think anyone is working with an exact map to define the land belonging to Israel by Biblical right. If they were we would be talking about borders that extended well into modern day Syria, lebanon, and perhaps other contries as well. The Bible does talk about borders. However, Jews that relate to Israel as the promised land don’t think about those border much. What they (we) do think about are places that have central importance within that Biblically inspired homeland. Where did the emmisaries go to get their first good summertime view of the land and pick a huge bunch of grapes that had to be carried on poles resting on the shoulders of two men? Hevron! Where was the Israelites first campsite in the promised land during the time of Joshua? Jericho! Where were the sanctuaries built? Shilo and Jerusalem! Where was the seat of royalty? Hebron, and later Jerusalem. Were were the patriarchs and matriarchs burried? Hebron, Shechem (Napolis) and Bethlehem.
I once looked at a demographic map in a biblical history book which showed great population concentrations in the areas that Palestinians are the majority today. They indicated population concetrations of Israelites and Judeans during a paticular period of Biblical history.
My point is that our connection to the Land of Israel does not focuss on borders within which we make our claims. It focusses on a biblical heartland which is MORE Important to us (we Biblical heartland loving modern day Israelites) than Tel Aviv, Ashkelon or Kiryat Gat.
My prediction is that if there is a Palestinian state, Jews will live within it. Not to undermine it. But just to live here because we love this land. Prepared to suffer terrible persecution at the hands of our Palestinian rulers our right to continue to live here will have been well earned.
Just to clarify, that’s my prediction IF there is a Palestinian state other than the one envisioned by the OP. Obviously, I’m not saying I want it to happen or even that it will happen.
Actually, there were Jews living in the Palestinian Mandate prior to the Balfour Declaration. Jews were the majority in Jerusalem accorrding to British census (sorry, can’t find the source as I write this) a hundred years ago, probably longer. In fact, outside of a few periods of extreme exile, Jews have lived in or around Jerusalem continuously for centuries. The numbers had been dwindling in the 13th century until Nachmonodies (Rabbi Nachmon ben Moshe) had been sent out of Europe (look into his Disputation with Pablo Chrisitiani, for more info.) which sparked a bit of a revitalization for Jews living in the area when he settled in Jerusalem (1267 C.E.).
What’s the point? There are claims of historic settlement by both Jews and Arabs. Why is this significant in the current discussions for a peace agreement? Palistinians demand that Jewish “settlements” be disbanded.
First, this begs the question how long one must be “settled” before claiming that they are settled? A week? A year? 5 years? 50 years? 100 years? 1000 years? There will always be some arbitrariness to a cut off. And if one side claims an historic claim, can this be dismissed? If the Romans hadn’t exiled the Jews, would Jews still be living there?
Second, even if a land partitioning agreement were made, why does the disbanding of Jewish settlements figure in as a required step? Does the State of Israel demand the disbanding of “Arab settlements” in Israel?
Some thought on the second issue: Obviously, any Jew living in a Palistinian country would not trust a Palistinian government to protect them, so some sort of military/security for a Jewish town would be sought. But this would seem to impinge on the sovereignty of a Palistinian state. The is no reciprical demand since Arabs living in the State of Israel do not have concerns or fears of Jews bombing their buses, shcools or places of worship.
Basically, the State of Israel has learned the hard way why Jordan was so quick to relinquish its demand for the West Bank after 1967. Jordan didn’t want to have to deal with the Palistinians there. Jordan’s attitude towards Palistinians will always be remembered as “Black September”. The Palistinians are generally treated poorly (to put it mildly) by everyone. So don’t look for other Arabs to sincerely wish to help them. It they wanted to, they would have been helped by now.
The impression I’ve gotten from talking to some Israelis on discussion boards is that most Israeli want the lands God promised, but are willing to give them up for peace.
So yes, they do want the land, but it’s not worth forty more years of fighting over.
Take them for what they are worth, a snapshot at one particular time. I’d be interested in seeing new numbers now.
Anyway, most Israeli Jews are fairly areligious secularists. Historical ties to land are one thing, current Israeli presence is one thing, but God’s promise isn’t high on most Israeli’s minds. Security is number one, and economics is number two.
This thread has surely supported the SDMB goal of fighting ignorance. I’ve learned a lot. And I’ve probably learned the most from those opposing my OP suggestion! (Not often one hears that, eh!)
So forget the east-of-Jordan bit. If you’ve haven’t already!
But I’m afraid my pessimistic assessment of the result of accepting what’s on the table right now seems justified. Theoretical concessions appear premissed upon real-world impracticability. I don’t see the Palestinians being ready, willing, or able to police themselves for the benefit of Israel, nor are the Israelis interested in much less than absolute security for their citizens.
I don’t see much alternative to: (1) recognizing Palestinian statehood in the occupied territories; (2) building a great big awful Berlin Wall along the Israeli side of the border–depriving the Palestinians of whatever economic opportunities they might have had available to them in Israel; and (3) a battle to the death over Jerusalem.
Two sides; no one wants to give in; ugliness results.
Maybe the 22nd Century will have a solution (if not the 4th millenium).
