It would seem likely that a country with rich-country demographics (relatively few kids) would be rather reluctant to import a very large minority that has completely different cultural values and poor-country demographics (lots of kids). I don’t think it’s remotely doable, it’s like proposing that the US should merge with Mexico and Cuba.
That’s without taking into consideration the security issues and the fact that assorted wingnuts on both sides would regard it as a blasphemous betrayal of their sacred oblications and murder anyone on ‘their’ side who actively worked towards such a solution.
Allow the masses of people to vote is of course the basis of democracy. Rule by a political elite is foreign to me as an American.
In Israel (or “Israestan” as I think Qadaffi awkwardly called it)?
Anywhere?
What’s the global solution to what seems to be the globally-applicable elitist (and I do not intend that as a pejorative) view you espouse?
Qadaffi asserted specifically that the Arabs fled out of fears of a Jewish-led pogrom, which Qadaffi acknowledges didn’t ensue and probably wasn’t actually planned.
How to resolve the two assertions about state of mind, probably the same way you resolve anything else: find some primary source documents quoting what the fleeing Arabs said at the time, then argue over how commentators should interpret those in light of other evidence. I have not undertaken this task, but would imagine someone has. Or several someones, reaching (probably) disparate conclusions.
Or a German state? Or a French? Or an Indian vs. a Pakistani?
States based on the American (or for that matter, Canadian) notion of ideological as opposed to ethnic or cultural affiliation are the exception in this world, not the rule.
It may well be that American notions of statehood will spread throughout the earth and ethno-nationalism will trouble the world no more. I profoundly hope so.
But to impose such a notion on people who do not believe in it is a prescription for disaster, as any attempt to impose an ideology on people usually is. Better, is it not, for such a thing to develop naturally - for example, out of a shared notion of values, as appears to be happening in parts of Europe.
I would say that an Israeli would not have a hard time assimilating with any other first-world type person (many Israelis have become Americans or Canadians without trouble). The real trick will be to raise an independent Palestine to first world status. Once that happens, one may begin to think of “unification” - along the lines of an expanded European Union or suchlike .
If I had a solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict do you think I’d be talking to you about it here on the Straight Dope?
Well when the masses are ideologically/religiously hostile to the political elite who are ideologically/religiously hostile to the masses, it doesn’t make for the best situation. The entire point of Israel is that they were tired of being Dhimmis in Europe. They aren’t going to trade that for being Dhimmis in Palestine.
What does South Africa have to do with it?
One odd thing to point out about Qadaffi’s position re Palestinian refugees is that, of course, under his rule the very last Jews in Lybia (out of a formerly flourishing Jewish community) were expelled - many to go to Israel. Not a fact he mentions in his article.
To his credit, in recent years I have heard he has been making noises about compensating them - but not, however, those who fled to Israel.
Paul: it’s a bad idea because it wouldn’t work. Putting Hamas in a position of power over Jews, or what have you, doesn’t become an even better idea simply because we call it “Isratopia” instead of “Israel and Palestine”. Smooshing two distinct cultures/elasticities into one mutually antagonistic blob doesn’t solve the problems, it just ignores them.
That’s actually a bit of a myth, the reality is a bit more complicated. Many left because the Arab leadership told them to leave. Many left because they were just ordinary people who were honestly concerned that war would come to their village, and so they got the hell out. (Of course, it’s important to point out that war didn’t have to occur and the politicians who were carrying on the Nazis’ program of extermination, or whose armies were led by Nazi officers, bear more than a little responsibility for there being a conflict in the first place). There also were many Arabs who fled their villages due to fighting that was already going on in/around their homes. Many also fled because of inflated stories of Deir Yassin, because of deliberate psychological warfare on the part of the proto-Israelis, because they feared Iraeli massacres due to the atmosphere of fear, etc, etc, etc…
That Arab forces bear most of the blame for there being a war in the first place that caused refugees isn’t really much in debate. But it’s not accurate to claim that the majority left of their own free will so that the Arabs could butcher the Jews.
They could make right on it, for instance, by compensating refugees for property that they lost. You also have to understand that many of the homes that were seized weren’t ever Palestinian property to begin with. Think of Miri and waste land as an apartment where you can only rent. If the property you rent is taken away from you, you’re not entitled to its purchase price in compensation.
Further, the Palestinian disposed aren’t the only refugee population created in 1948 (which you have to remember was a regional conflict.) A roughly equivalent number of Jewish refugees were driven from/fled Arab countries, and many settled in Israel. Their grandchildren probably aren’t particularly interested in going back, either. Israel should compensate Palestinian dispossessed, but the Arab nations should also compensate Jewish dispossessed.
There’s also the fact that major conflicts during that time period often ended with population swaps. The fall of Nazi Germany and the creation of Pakistan spring to mind. As long as people are provided for and can lead a good life in their new home, I don’t see it as imperative that they have old land back.
On edit: And as Malthus points out, even in recent memory Jews have been expelled from their homes and are lucky to even be mentioned when people talk about compensating/dealing with refugees. I don’t see it as fair that Israel should be expected to absorb, at its own cost, hundreds of thousands of Jewish dispossessed while Arab dispossessed deserve full compensation or repatriation on property that was never owned by them in the first place.
There were people there… they did stuff. In a context that had very little parallels and a totally different dynamic, history, context and set of facts.
Of course, South Africa was chosen instead of Zimbabwe. I can’t guess why…
Blue state/red state anyone?
I don’t have a dog in the one-state/two-state solution. But things like “the masses can’t be trusted” and “two distinct cultures/elasticities into one mutually antagonistic blob doesn’t solve the problems” (by another poster) may go a little further than a progressive (I don’t accuse anyone here of having made or not made that claim) would otherwise go in characterizing the viability of a hetergeneous, ethnically, economically, religiously mixed unified polity. When on U.S. soil, the official party line is that none of those differences are fatal to a great melting pot, and that it’s a little bit crude to suggest otherwise.
It’s called diversity, and it’s oficially awesome and only makes a country stronger.
Blue state/red state?
How about Germany/Switzerland?
It’s called an invalid analogy, it’s AWESOME.
The United States isn’t the Middle East, as should be obvious.
When people immigrate here, they have the explicit expectation that they’ll become Americans, hyphenated or not, and that they’re not going to try to ethnically cleanse any other groups in America. In order to become citizens, they have to jump through hoops specifically designed to reinforce their new American identity.
It seems you’re not realizing that various distinct groups, especially those who already have their own sovereign nation, might not want their home to be dissolved and reincorporated into a new one. Your argument is a bit like saying that Georgians should just submit to Russian rule, because it’s diversity and diversity is AWESOME. Or that Canada should just become part of the US because it’s diversity and diversity is AWESOME. Or all of Ireland should be part of Great Britain, because it’s diversity and diversity is AWESOME.
Or, for that matter, all the nation states in entire world should simply merge into one great big Earthistan, because then it’d be really diverse and diversity is AWESOME.
As I’d hope would be very obvious, there is a huge difference between immigrating to a nation with the explicit agreement that you’ll become one of its citizens, and smooshing together two separate states whose people have no desire to become one state. Not to mention that a significant portion of the population of one group is committed to the extermination of the other group.
Ignoring those distinction to make a facile comparison is a bit crude.
Also, that should have been “cultures/ethnicities”. Saw it underlined in red and must have clicked on the wrong replacement.
Now that’s a funnny typo 
My analogy is not invalid. The official American party line is that different races and ethnic groups should always be able to get along. Israeli Jews and Palestinians are culturally/ethnically/religiously different. Hence, they should get along, period.
What you may question is the soundness of my [actually, not my; rather the ones I advert to] premises. As do I.
Coupled with my statements in other posts that I truly don’t have a dog in the fight of how the desert gets carved up over there – don’t live there, don’t want to, have criticisms I might but won’t make of both Palestinian and Israeli political and cultural traits – I just remain agnostic; you might have picked up more on the fact that I think Israel and its advocates are . . . realists.
That is, I was making fun of, as much as anything, the glib Western assurance that culture doesn’t matter, that differences will always and inevitably lead to nothing but a gorgeous mosaic, that economic migrants have a fervent commitment to assimilating, that those advocating irredentist Aztlan fantasies in public universities are fully on-board with the unified American project. Israel is a kind of test bed for why you don’t want to be too glib about this sort of thinking. I remain convinced, though, that there is some overlap between those who are willing to be hardheaded realists about the limits of diversity in the context of carving up the M.E., and those who would excoriate as necessarily racist any concerns about preserving “Western Culture” (yes, I am posting on themes spread out across several recent threads, excuse the somewhat hijack).
Perhaps you should space your inherent contradictions a bit farther apart when in the same thread.
What does America giving back land stolen from Native Americans have to do with Israel? Nothing. Their descendants aren’t en mass asking for it back, are they? Why do you suppose that is? Because they are us? Because they have full voting rights? Because they can live and work wherever they want, including on their reservation if they want that, which is truly autonomous? Israel does not allow Palestinians to move around the country, to and from the West Bank and Gaza or the rest of the country. The only people I have ever heard make the suggestion that the US give back the country to the Native Americans are Israeli propagandists. Never mind that the particular Native Americans are long deceased and their descendants intermingled with the rest of the population. When Israeli’s give Americans billions of aid every year, then they can start making suggestions about how we run our country in matters that do not involve them. Until then, perhaps they should stick to arguing their own interests and not be distracting.
What does South Africa have to do with it you ask? Perhaps you are unaware of the analogy that Apartheid South Africa is similar to how the Israelis treat the Palestinians. Yes, I know that the Israeli propagandists reject this out of hand, but a number of observers, including Jimmy Carter have made this analogy. One that an increasing number of Americans are accepting and the rest of the world has accepted for a long time.
The United States should stop funding Israel’s making this problem worse. Until the Apartheid in Israel ends, we should all boycott Israel. Let’s hope that it ends at least as nicely as it did in South Africa.
I had visions of Stretcho the Rubber Man trying to resolve the decades-old rift with the BLO (Bearded Ladies Organization).
You can’t be serious. Red State/Blue State division is more like the Israeli Right Wing vs the Israeli Left Wing than it is like Palestinian/Israeli.
Then be more precise. You said religiously/ideologically hostile. There is certainly significant religious, cultural, and ideological disconnect and distrust between Malibu liberals or Georgetown cocktail party attendees and members of a rural Georgia pentecostal church.
It isn’t as great as the gulf between genocidally minded drive-them-into-the-sea mullahs and the IDF? Then make a more precise statement.
As I noted just above, in my pessimistic moments, I suspect the Israeli answer may be closer to the more universally applicable one – I’d argue (on bad days when listening to shrill idiots from both sides) that a country containing Dahlonega Georgia and Malibu is just about barely (if that) governable.
What inherent contradictions?
Because they recognized it’s a lost cause?
I was being sarcastic.
Yes, I am aware of Jimmy Carter’s specious analogy.
I’m all for pulling aid from both Israel AND Palestine. It would only work if everyone did it though. Maybe at the same time we should withhold aid from Egypt until they are willing to assimilate Gaza.
Apartheid would end if Gaza’s ruling party removed the destruction of Israel from its charter. When you argue vociferously for that, then maybe I’ll take arguments about ending, ‘apartheid’, seriously at all. The problem with your side of the argument is you have no expectations of the Palestinians at all. You expect the Israelis to assimilate a hostile population that wants their complete expulsion from the land.
Let me know when the killing starts otherwise I hope you don’t mind that I think this analogy is worthless.
Please show me an official Israeli government document calling for the complete removal of the Palestinian people from that land. If they had a charter like Hamas’s there would be no Palestinians in Gaza or the West Bank.
Patently ridiculous. I was in the backwoods of Alabama just a couple of weeks ago and today I am in Manhattan. I felt equally safe and comfortable in both places.