• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Israel/Palestinian Two State Solution[W:3]

A

akrunner88

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 21, 2015
Messages
2,171
Reaction score
970
Location
Pennsalvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Will there ever be a two state solution? What are your predictions regarding where relations will be at in 5, 10, 15, 20 years, etc?

As a liberal, I find myself in the small group on my side of the aisle that considers themselves "Zionists" in that we support the political aims of the Israeli government. Bill Maher is another leftist Israel supporter who could arguably be labeled a Zionist.

I do not believe a two-state solution is possible. Israel has a land mass roughly the size of Rhode Island with a population that increases each year, just like every other country. There is only so much land available with what they have now to build new housing developments and economic developments, and therefore the practice of building on the Gaza Strip and other areas will only continue. There's just no getting around this.

And as a result, the violence from the Palestinian side (arguably justifiable) will continue.

I don't know what the solution is. I know Israel has a right to exist, and I know the pre-1967 borders are unrealistic and will never happen, no matter how hard the world fights for this. Palestine will continue to stay poor and overcrowded, and violent. I think that the neighboring states could consider absorbing the Palestinian people, which I also know will never happen.

One thing I do know for sure, is that violence will continue to happen and more than likely get worse and worse. And I'll continue to support Israel's right to defend itself by using disproportionate response to annihilate Hamas.
 
Re: Israel/Palestinian Two State Solution

akrunner88 said:
Will there ever be a two state solution?
Click to expand...

If the Palestinians want it, sure.

And from there, Israelis need to learn the meaning of boundaries.
 
Last edited:
akrunner88 said:
Will there ever be a two state solution? What are your predictions regarding where relations will be at in 5, 10, 15, 20 years, etc?

As a liberal, I find myself in the small group on my side of the aisle that considers themselves "Zionists" in that we support the political aims of the Israeli government. Bill Maher is another leftist Israel supporter who could arguably be labeled a Zionist.

I do not believe a two-state solution is possible. Israel has a land mass roughly the size of Rhode Island with a population that increases each year, just like every other country. There is only so much land available with what they have now to build new housing developments and economic developments, and therefore the practice of building on the Gaza Strip and other areas will only continue. There's just no getting around this.

And as a result, the violence from the Palestinian side (arguably justifiable) will continue.

I don't know what the solution is. I know Israel has a right to exist, and I know the pre-1967 borders are unrealistic and will never happen, no matter how hard the world fights for this. Palestine will continue to stay poor and overcrowded, and violent. I think that the neighboring states could consider absorbing the Palestinian people, which I also know will never happen.

One thing I do know for sure, is that violence will continue to happen and more than likely get worse and worse. And I'll continue to support Israel's right to defend itself by using disproportionate response to annihilate Hamas.
Click to expand...

One side thinks that because their ancient ancestors live there a long time ago that somehow entitles them to that land .The other that has been living there for centuries basically got kicked out and moved around to make room for the first group. It will be very hard for a two state solution to happen. Plus I do not think it helps that that the Palestinian area is divided in two, meaning residents will have to cross through Israel to go from West Bank to Gaza Strip.
 
akrunner88 said:
Will there ever be a two state solution? What are your predictions regarding where relations will be at in 5, 10, 15, 20 years, etc?

As a liberal, I find myself in the small group on my side of the aisle that considers themselves "Zionists" in that we support the political aims of the Israeli government. Bill Maher is another leftist Israel supporter who could arguably be labeled a Zionist.

I do not believe a two-state solution is possible. Israel has a land mass roughly the size of Rhode Island with a population that increases each year, just like every other country. There is only so much land available with what they have now to build new housing developments and economic developments, and therefore the practice of building on the Gaza Strip and other areas will only continue. There's just no getting around this.

And as a result, the violence from the Palestinian side (arguably justifiable) will continue.

I don't know what the solution is. I know Israel has a right to exist, and I know the pre-1967 borders are unrealistic and will never happen, no matter how hard the world fights for this. Palestine will continue to stay poor and overcrowded, and violent. I think that the neighboring states could consider absorbing the Palestinian people, which I also know will never happen.

One thing I do know for sure, is that violence will continue to happen and more than likely get worse and worse. And I'll continue to support Israel's right to defend itself by using disproportionate response to annihilate Hamas.
Click to expand...

Israel is not building anything in the Gaza Strip. Israel disengaged from Gaza strip at 2006 and rooted out ~10,000 Jews who lived there.
Population density is not the problem behind the dispute, 2/3 of Israel (the Negev) is very sparsely populated and almost half of the population sits in Tel Aviv Metropolin area
 
jamesrage said:
One side thinks that because their ancient ancestors live there a long time ago that somehow entitles them to that land .The other that has been living there for centuries basically got kicked out and moved around to make room for the first group. It will be very hard for a two state solution to happen. Plus I do not think it helps that that the Palestinian area is divided in two, meaning residents will have to cross through Israel to go from West Bank to Gaza Strip.
Click to expand...

Not entirely certain where you're starting from, but it would seem you're referring to the beginning of the movement to acquire territory made possible by the sale of land to Jews by Arab land owners beginning in the late 19th century. To put it another way, you are perfectly free to purchase land under the presumption that it was your ancestors' by right, or because you were in tune with the Earth Gaia in that particular location, or because Tarot cards told you to. The motive is largely irrelevant so long as you purchased the land legally. Which the Jews did (though not without some resistance by the Ottoman rulers):

In the first half of the 19th century, no foreigners were allowed to purchase land in Palestine. This was official Turkish policy until 1856 and in practice until 1867.[5] When it came to the national aspirations of the Zionist movement, the Ottoman Empire opposed the idea of Jewish self-rule in Palestine, fearing it may lose control of Palestine after recently having lost other territories to various European powers. It also took issue with the Jews, as many came from Russia which sought the empire's demise.[6] In 1881 the Ottoman governmental administration (the Sublime Porte) decreed that foreign Jews could immigrate to and settle anywhere within the Ottoman Empire, except in Palestine and from 1882 until their defeat in 1918, the Ottomans continuously restricted Jewish immigration and land purchases in Palestine.[6] In 1882, Jews were banned from their Four Holy Cities and in 1891, after briefly allowing some Jewish immigration three years earlier, the Turkish rulers tried to again to close the empire to Russian Jews.[6] In 1892, the Ottoman government decided to prohibit the sale of land in Palestine to Jews, even if they were Ottoman citizens.[7] Nevertheless, during the late 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, many successful land purchases were made through organizations such as the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association (PJCA), Palestine Land Development Company and the Jewish National Fund.
Jewish rabbis purchasing land from an Arab landowner, 1920s.

The Ottoman Land Code of 1858 "brought about the appropriation by the influential and rich families of Beirut, Damascus, and to a lesser extent Jerusalem and Jaffa and other sub-district capitals, of vast tracts of land in Syria and Palestine and their registration in the name of these families in the land registers".[8] Many of the fellahin did not understand the importance of the registers and therefore the wealthy families took advantage of this. Jewish buyers who were looking for large tracts of land found it favorable to purchase from the wealthy owners. As well many small farmers became in debt to rich families which lead to the transfer of land to the new owners and then eventually to the Jewish buyers.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_land_purchase_in_Palestine#Land_purchases

You'll also note in that article that disinterest by Arabs in the area helped helped spur the land purchases, due to the danger of the area by Bedouins and non-arable soil. It took a full generation by immigrants to turn around the quality of the land to the point that it could reliably produce agriculture.
 
Last edited:
akrunner88 said:
One thing I do know for sure, is that violence will continue to happen and more than likely get worse and worse. And I'll continue to support Israel's right to defend itself by using disproportionate response to annihilate Hamas.
Click to expand...

Do you not see how the terms "defend" and "disproportionate response" contradict each other? Has it occurred to you that this may be the reason that the violence will continue?
 
MrWonka said:
Do you not see how the terms "defend" and "disproportionate response" contradict each other? Has it occurred to you that this may be the reason that the violence will continue?
Click to expand...

What sort of "proportionate" response would you like to see?
 
Cardinal said:
What sort of "proportionate" response would you like to see?
Click to expand...

One that does not cause more damage than what the original attack did.

What Israel is doing is essentially "Passive Aggression." Wait for Palestine to set off a fire cracker, and use it for an excuse to level a thousand palestinians.
 
MrWonka said:
One that does not cause more damage than what the original attack did.

What Israel is doing is essentially "Passive Aggression." Wait for Palestine to set off a fire cracker, and use it for an excuse to level a thousand palestinians.
Click to expand...

Okay, a couple different questions regarding your response.

1)So if the Palestinians fire five rockets directed at five Jewish civilian locations, you wouldn't mind five rockets, I assume of equal power, fired at five civilian Palestinian locations?
2)What if Israel doesn't want to wait for a firecracker to be set off in the first place?
 
MrWonka said:
One that does not cause more damage than what the original attack did.

What Israel is doing is essentially "Passive Aggression." Wait for Palestine to set off a fire cracker, and use it for an excuse to level a thousand palestinians.
Click to expand...
No, not at all.
Israel dont searching for excuses to kill Arabs, it seems that you are reading too much bias information on this topic, my advice to you is to cross information from the two sides of the conflict.
 
What's repulsive is the tacit tenet of the Israeli-Palestinian discourse that dictates we start every discussion with a valiant and righteous proclamation of Israel's right to exist. In candor, however, there's nothing valiant or righteous about it, for it's moral camouflage that attempts to sugarcoat prejudice and wash its aftertaste. What other purpose would that proclamation serve? Israel does exist and has been existing for the past 70 years. It's sovereign and prosperous. It's citizens are free to do what they want when and where they want. It has its own economy and its own military. It's internationally recognized and diplomatically justified. And it overflows with the largesse of its many allies and sympathizers.

On the other side of that narrow isle, we have a people that are ruined, ravaged, brutalized, occupied. A people that are denied existence. A people that are deprived of dignity and humanity. A people of refugees and diaspora, of camps and ghettos. So tell me again, why does Israel's right to exist dictate the discourse? why is it a sacred incantation?

Furthermore, and since Zionism succeeded in its aim to establish a Jewish state on the land of Palestine, what justification do the multitudinous Zionists have to exist? Isn't their very existence a token of bad faith and ill will? that nothing other than total domination over the land of Palestine and total ruination of the Palestinian people will content us? In light of Zionism's prominence in Israeli public life, illegal settlements are no accident, nor is the perpetuation of the occupation and the brutalization of the population. All are expressions of an expansionist ideology bent on total domination and the other's denial.

As for the feasibility of a two-state solution, no need to state the obvious. But lest we forget, it was Israel that killed that solution. We must remember that despite the turbulences and trials that undertaking underwent, it was breathing until Netenyahu ran on a platform whose only virtue was "there will be no Palestinian state under my rule", a pledge that won him the 2015 elections despite his appalling governance record and the Israeli public's grievances against him. That was before the current wave of violence, before the EU and other international bodies dared to slap Israel on the wrist, and before the supposed rebellion of the PA. When the violence soars and anarchy prevails, we shall not continue with the same prejudice that casts moral and political equivalency on both sides on the rare occasion it relents.
 
Gaztopian said:
What's repulsive is the tacit tenet of the Israeli-Palestinian discourse that dictates we start every discussion with a valiant and righteous proclamation of Israel's right to exist. In candor, however, there's nothing valiant or righteous about it, for it's moral camouflage that attempts to sugarcoat prejudice and wash its aftertaste. What other purpose would that proclamation serve? Israel does exist and has been existing for the past 70 years. It's sovereign and prosperous. It's citizens are free to do what they want when and where they want. It has its own economy and its own military. It's internationally recognized and diplomatically justified. And it overflows with the largesse of its many allies and sympathizers.

On the other side of that narrow isle, we have a people that are ruined, ravaged, brutalized, occupied. A people that are denied existence. A people that are deprived of dignity and humanity. A people of refugees and diaspora, of camps and ghettos. So tell me again, why does Israel's right to exist dictate the discourse? why is it a sacred incantation?

Furthermore, and since Zionism succeeded in its aim to establish a Jewish state on the land of Palestine, what justification do the multitudinous Zionists have to exist? Isn't their very existence a token of bad faith and ill will? that nothing other than total domination over the land of Palestine and total ruination of the Palestinian people will content us? In light of Zionism's prominence in Israeli public life, illegal settlements are no accident, nor is the perpetuation of the occupation and the brutalization of the population. All are expressions of an expansionist ideology bent on total domination and the other's denial.

As for the feasibility of a two-state solution, no need to state the obvious. But lest we forget, it was Israel that killed that solution. We must remember that despite the turbulences and trials that undertaking underwent, it was breathing until Netenyahu ran on a platform whose only virtue was "there will be no Palestinian state under my rule", a pledge that won him the 2015 elections despite his appalling governance record and the Israeli public's grievances against him. That was before the current wave of violence, before the EU and other international bodies dared to slap Israel on the wrist, and before the supposed rebellion of the PA. When the violence soars and anarchy prevails, we shall not continue with the same prejudice that casts moral and political equivalency on both sides on the rare occasion it relents.
Click to expand...

Indeed there is no moral equivalence between Israelis who will embrace peace if only given an opportunity and the Palestinians who will embrace genocide of all Jews in the region if only given the opportunity.
 
Cardinal said:
Okay, a couple different questions regarding your response.

1)So if the Palestinians fire five rockets directed at five Jewish civilian locations, you wouldn't mind five rockets, I assume of equal power, fired at five civilian Palestinian locations?
Click to expand...
No, I would say they are allowed to do what is minimally necessary to stop the specific people that fired the initial 5 rockets. If you can't hit them though don't just randomly fire 5 rockets at Palestine to "teach them a lesson."

Cardinal said:
2)What if Israel doesn't want to wait for a firecracker to be set off in the first place?
Click to expand...

That's the type of mentality that starts these conflicts in the first place. I would say it is the responsibility of the clearly more powerful state to fire only when fired upon.
 
NO1 said:
No, not at all.
Israel dont searching for excuses to kill Arabs, it seems that you are reading too much bias information on this topic, my advice to you is to cross information from the two sides of the conflict.
Click to expand...

Believe me I have done plenty of homework. From my perspective there is plenty of blame to go around in the conflict, but Israel is clearly the more powerful state. Power comes with more responsibility to restrain yourself and not escalate a dangerous situation any more than is absolutely necessary.
 
MrWonka said:
Believe me I have done plenty of homework. From my perspective there is plenty of blame to go around in the conflict, but Israel is clearly the more powerful state. Power comes with more responsibility to restrain yourself and not escalate a dangerous situation any more than is absolutely necessary.
Click to expand...
Ok, so why you implied that Israel searching for excuses to kill Arabs?

Indeed Israel is strong and powerful country and still it has the right to protect itself from the terror groups.
 
NO1 said:
Ok, so why you implied that Israel searching for excuses to kill Arabs?
Click to expand...
Because clearly we have seen situations where Israel has used excessive force greater than what was truly necessary to just defend itself.

NO1 said:
Indeed Israel is strong and powerful country and still it has the right to protect itself from the terror groups.
Click to expand...

Sure, but what constitutes "protection" is the real question. Are they actually "protecting" themselves or are they using "protection" as an excuse to escalate.

This to me is very similar to what America did with the War in Iraq. No doubt America had the right to protect itself from Al Qaeda and the Taliban after 9/11. The invasion of Afghanistan was justified under those circumstances, but then Bush used anger over 9/11 to justify a preemptive war in Iraq in the name of "protection." This was not a defensive maneuver it was an offensive attack. America escalated the conflict in the middle east.

This is what is meant when people say "violence begets violence." As the more powerful state both Israel, and America have a responsibility to not overreact to every little thing. There is a difference between "standing up for yourself" and being a thin skinned reactionary that escalates the problem unnecessarily. The death tolls in this conflict seem to indicate that Israel is killing way more Palestinians than vice versa. It's time to stop arguing over who started it, and look at who's doing what is necessary to stop perpetuating it.
 
MrWonka said:
Because clearly we have seen situations where Israel has used excessive force greater than what was truly necessary to just defend itself.
Click to expand...
Give example when that happend.



Sure, but what constitutes "protection" is the real question. Are they actually "protecting" themselves or are they using "protection" as an excuse to escalate.

This to me is very similar to what America did with the War in Iraq. No doubt America had the right to protect itself from Al Qaeda and the Taliban after 9/11. The invasion of Afghanistan was justified under those circumstances, but then Bush used anger over 9/11 to justify a preemptive war in Iraq in the name of "protection." This was not a defensive maneuver it was an offensive attack. America escalated the conflict in the middle east.

This is what is meant when people say "violence begets violence." As the more powerful state both Israel, and America have a responsibility to not overreact to every little thing. There is a difference between "standing up for yourself" and being a thin skinned reactionary that escalates the problem unnecessarily. The death tolls in this conflict seem to indicate that Israel is killing way more Palestinians than vice versa. It's time to stop arguing over who started it, and look at who's doing what is necessary to stop perpetuating it.
Click to expand...
Your comparison is wrong, Israel unlike the US is dealing with terrorists since it's beginning and they are just couple of miles from us and sometimes between us.
Again, can you be more specific so we can discuss if Israel really used excessive force?
 
MrWonka said:
No, I would say they are allowed to do what is minimally necessary to stop the specific people that fired the initial 5 rockets. If you can't hit them though don't just randomly fire 5 rockets at Palestine to "teach them a lesson."
Click to expand...

Please be specific. Hamas fires five rockets from hospitals and schools in Hamas-controlled territory. Specifically, what is the minimum response necessary?

MrWonka said:
That's the type of mentality that starts these conflicts in the first place. I would say it is the responsibility of the clearly more powerful state to fire only when fired upon.
Click to expand...

That's what Israel does.
 
MrWonka said:
Believe me I have done plenty of homework. From my perspective there is plenty of blame to go around in the conflict, but Israel is clearly the more powerful state. Power comes with more responsibility to restrain yourself and not escalate a dangerous situation any more than is absolutely necessary.
Click to expand...

What is this the Spiderman doctrine? With great power comes great responsibility?

No. here in real life with great power comes the responsibility to stand up to those trying to murder your people and ****ing ruin them before they have the chance. Anything else violates the fundamental obligation a state has to its citizens.
 
MrWonka said:
This to me is very similar to what America did with the War in Iraq. No doubt America had the right to protect itself from Al Qaeda and the Taliban after 9/11.

The invasion of Afghanistan was justified under those circumstances,
Click to expand...

Not according to your Spiderman Doctrine. All the taliban did was lend a bit of support to some terrorists who only deployed a few "makeshift bombs" that caused a few thousand casualties. In response the Americans launched a full-scale invasion, killed tens of thousands of people and dropped, what, a million tons of bombs?

You have a "responsibility" to just sit back, react proportionately by targeting only those terrorists involved in the attack and wait until the next time al-quaeda decided to try to murder your people, and after each of those subsequent attacks you had a "responsibility" to just do a little bit of damage going after those who directly launched those attacks.

It is silly nonsense like this which caused 9-11 in the first place, you know. Ignore al-quaeda trying to blow up the WTC the first time or lobbing bombs at US ships or limit your response to lobbing some bombs back at empty training camps and call it a day. Until they get one through and do some real damage.

But apparently it was the American's "responsibility" to sit back and only act defensively until the bad guys got through.
 
CJ 2.0 said:
It is silly nonsense like this which caused 9-11 in the first place,
Click to expand...

Yeah, cause clearly the decisions Israel has made over the last half century have prevented Palestinian attacks.
 
MrWonka said:
Yeah, cause clearly the decisions Israel has made over the last half century have prevented Palestinian attacks.
Click to expand...

You must have missed my post, so...

Please be specific. Hamas fires five rockets from hospitals and schools in Hamas-controlled territory. In this scenario, what specifically is the minimum response necessary?

Also remember that Israel does, in fact, only fire when fired upon.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom