It may be reasonable, and it may not. In any case, it is a point to be raised in the negotiation, not before.
Not so.
There is always the status quo. Any attempt to change it requires the will of all involved to do so. If one side wishes to change it and the other do not, than the side wishing the change is placing a condition. And if that condition is placed before the initiation of the negotiation, then it is a precondition. The side wishing to maintain the status quo does not make a precondition, by the very definition of the term.
Israel does not demand the continuation of the settlements as a precondition. If the negotiations will lead elsewhere, so shall be.
And yes, Israel and Palestine do not negotiate from the same place. So?
And if we’re talking rhetorics, I wonder what would have been the fate of the Jews if the Arabs had won the 1948 war or the 1967 war. And would anyone demand the refugees (if any are left) be relocated into their original place.
No, it quite clearly does not support your claim. Please provide cite or withdraw.
The 4th link, which you disregarded, states quite the opposite – Israel can pose its own preconditions, but do not.
Right… who cares what the Israeli PM says. Everyone knows what he really wants…
to summarize, let me see if I understand your position:
Negotiation should begin without preconditions.
The Palestinian demands from the negotiations should be accepted before the initiation of the negotiations.
Israel must forgo its own demands before the negotiation.
So, we must negotiate without preconditions, on the precondition the Palestinian preconditions are met, and another precondition that Israeli demands are withdrawn.
Makes perfect sense. :rolleyes:
That’s a mighty big “if”. And why did you say 50-100 years? Why not 500?
Like you said in your next post: if Israel were to annex the WB and Gaza, and gave the Palestinians citizenship, it would be a one-state solution, that is not accepted by Israel, as it would violate the Jewish part if Israel’s identity.
So, the relevant options are:
Annex the area, but don’t grant citizenship to the population. Thus creating two classes of people, violating the Democratic part of Israel’s identity - and being immoral.
Don’t annex the territory, and wait for some future when things look better. Which means you keep a large number of people, who gained national identity, without rights. Hence immoral.
Being that as it may, it does not change the fact that the word at large will most likely not stand by forever.
I am happy to provide cites if you first represent to me that you are seriously skeptical of the claim.
I don’t think it’s that big. Arab fertility has been dropping for quite a while now.
50 to 100 years is my rough estimate.
Ok, but waiting until there is a comfortable Jewish majority would get around that problem, agreed?
So, the relevant options are:
I basically agree.
Disagree. I don’t see any immorality in limiting peoples’ rights if it’s reasonably necessary to prevent a greater evil. In the case of the Arabs, giving them political autonomy as a group will be destructive both for Israel as well as for the Arabs themselves.
Look, if you think it’s immoral to deny the Arabs of the West Bank political autonomy; and you think that this consideration trumps any other principle, then you must believe that Israel should withdraw immediately. Right?
Well what do you think the world outside of Israel would do if Israel waited for a Jewish majority and then annexed the West Bank just like it did with Golan? Issue more condemnations in the United Nations? Launch rockets? Call for boycotts?
Why am I not shocked that Brazil84 demands cites to show Hamas was influential in Gaza prior to Sharon’s withdrawal but refuses to provide any citation for his bizarre claim that due to changing fertility rates Jews in the West Bank will outnumber Palestinians in the West Bank.
Wh not create a mixed Jewish-Muslim state-call it Israelstine"- integration would be mandatory-no segregation allowed. The citizens of this state would have dual nationality (if they wished).
That might be the solution.
Well, I am.
I know some of the settlers (not all of them) have a high number of children per family. I don’t know that the rates are increasing.
And while I’ve read that fertility rates among Israeli Arabs are dropping, I’m yet to see similar claims WRT the WB Arabs.
So, if you don’t mind - cite?
Without any number to back that up, it’s not so much a rough estimate as it is a wishful thinking.
IF that will ever happens.
And IF the international community will wait that long.
THEN it will get around that problem. But not the moral issue.
But since limiting their rights is a sure thing, while the bad outcome is just a guess on your part, I think the scales don’t tip to your favor.
I didn’t say it “trumps any other principle”, now did I?
But yes, I do think the Israel should cease expending the settlements, and that we should try as hard as we can to negotiate with the PA, on the basis of the '67 lines, with consideration for the non-revocable changes, e.g., land swaps.
Boycotts sounds about right. Political isolation isn’t a field day either. Nor is an economical one, a scientific one, a tourism one, and so forth.
Ah, so you support the “Lebanon model” for Israel.
Obvious objections.
A)both sides would reject it.
B)no one could force the Israelis to accept it.
C)why would the Papestinian Christians support this?
D)it didn’t work well in Lebanon, to say the least, where Christians and Muslims had a shared language, extremely similar cultures, and several centuries worth of shared history which for the most part was peaceful and where hostility between the two was vastly less than in Israel.
With all due respect, that would be just about the worst possible solution.
Question: bullshit aside, anyone here truly believes that Israel wants anything other that a Jewish nation/home which includes both Gaza & The West Bank? Which takes me back to a few posts upthread, what to do with the Palestinians?
(It is, of course, meaningless to talk about what “Israel wants,” as there are lots and lots of points of view expressed within Israeli politics. So I will say: I believe that there are many Israelis – whether or not a majority, I do not know – whose goals do not include annexation of the West Bank or Gaza.)
And to add to what Trinopus said – even the majority of those who would like an Israel which include both WB and G, realize now that it’s now a viable solution, and are willing to compromise.
Apart from RedFury, apparently, it would be almost impossible to find anyone who would think that Israel wants Gaza. Even the most fervent “Eretz Yisrael Ha-shlema” adherents would readily admit that Gaza was never historically part of it.
There are a lot of problems with that. Even assuming that the Muslims did not actively persecute the Jews, a Muslim-majority Israel would surely change the immigration laws to prevent further Jewish immigration and encourage substantial Muslim immigration. Which kind of defeats the purpose of setting up a safe refuge for Jews.
Is there any country which (1) has a majority of Arab Muslims; and (2) is reasonably livable for minorities? I can’t think of one. It’s reasonable to expect that an Israel which was majority Arab Muslims would become a lot less pleasant for Jews. Just based on the track record. And ignoring the fact that generation after generation of Arabs in the area (both Muslim and Christian) have been raised on extreme hatred of Israeli Jews.
Ok, let’s do some math. First of all, will you accept Terr’s cites from Post #? If not, I can try to find something more authoritative.
Next, let’s look at the phenomenal rate of growth of Jewish settlements on the West Bank. According to Wikipedia, that rate is approximately 5 to 6 percent per year. Let’s assume that part of that is due to immigration and take a figure of 4% per year as the growth rate due to good old fashioned reproduction.
Note that one can expect this rate to go up over time as the breeders become a larger and larger percentage of the population.
At the moment there are about 650,000 Jews living on the West Bank and Eastern Jerusalem. Thus, at an annual growth rate of 4%, one can expect that in 100 years about 32 million Jews. This may be a high estimate, but it’s pretty easy to see that in 6 or so generations, there is likely to be a huge number of Jews living in the area.
Ok, now what about the Arab side? According to Wikipedia, the Arab population of the West Bank and East Jerusalem is approximately 2.5 million people and a growth rate of 2.09 percent. Is that growth rate increasing or decreasing? I think it’s pretty well known to be decreasing. I did a Google search and found this paper which claims that Arab fertility rates are dropping on the West Bank. Let me know if you are skeptical on this issue and I will try to find some more sources.
Anyway, if we start with 2.5 million people and assume a growth rate of 2.0 percent for the next hundred years, you end up with about 18 million people. This estimate is almost certainly high since fertility rates among the Arabs are likely to keep declining to replacement and perhaps lower. Just like fertility rates declined just about everywhere in the world except among devout Christians and Jews.
Of course, you might quibble with some of my numbers, but I think it’s pretty clear that it’s totally reasonable to expect a comfortable Jewish majority on the West Bank in the next 50 to 100 years. Arab population on the West Bank is likely to level off whereas Jewish population is likely to keep exploding. It won’t take too many doublings for the Jewish population to get ahead.
It’s a guess in the same way I guess that it will snow somewhere in the United States in the next 2 months.
But let’s see if I understand your position: You believe that it’s immoral to limit the rights of a group of people unless you are absolutely certain of a bad outcome without those limits?
You didn’t say it explicitly but you seem to have implied it.
Let me ask you this: Why shouldn’t Israel agree to Palestinian Statehood and withdraw from (most of) the West Bank right now? By occupying an area without giving citizenship and voting rights to the people there, isn’t Israel behaving immorally in your view? Why shouldn’t Israel cease its immoral behavior immediately?
Lol, that stuff has been going on since 1947 and will continue regardless of whether Israel annexes the West Bank.
Leaving aside the fact that we’ve been talking about “the West Bank” not “the West Bank and East Jerusalem” anyone who thinks that 100 years from now the Jewish population on the West Bank will have jumped from just a few hundred thousand to 32 million people has been staring so hard at the trees they missed the forest.
It should be noted there are on 14 million Jews in the entire world today.
Beyond that, I’ll note Brazil84 hasn’t produced a single Israeli academic or spokesperson who’s argued that Jews should “within 50 years” outnumber Arabs on the West Bank due to their fertility rates.
The reason he hasn’t is because frankly there probably aren’t any who believe his rather irrational theory. If one doesn’t believe me, ask any of the Israelis on this board.
In fact, just the opposite is true. Israeli academics argue over whether the “demographic problem” is real or exagerated, but none are arguing that there’s a reverse demographic bomb and the Jews are on course to outbreed the Arabs.
OK, how about a Yugoslavia model? Set up lots of little states-each one reflecting a different ethnic group (like Bosnia, Croatia, Montenegro…etc.) In the case of Palestine/Israel, there could be a Druse state, a Christian State, a Sunni state, Jewish state-and have them in some kind of Federal Union.
Ops…I guess “Yugoslavia” wasn’t such a good idea…:eek:
Look, any power that the Arabs get over the Jews will be used to get rid of the “Jewish state” if possible. Besides which, the Arabs have a pretty bad track record when it comes to power-sharing.