• 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!

Israeli-Palestinian Dispute: Solutions Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,862
Reaction score
10,300
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
EDIT TO ADD: Thread bumped. Please see post #849.



Too often threads on the historic Israeli-Palestinian dispute veer off on tangents. Occasionally, those tangents lead to extreme positions.

As an exercise, and a challenging one, members should introduce suggestions that they believe could contribute or enhance a peaceful outcome of the historic dispute. It should be assumed that the dispute is not irreconcilable, even if some elements e.g., Hamas, have irreconcilable demands.

Proposed solutions should accommodate the core needs of both the Israelis and Palestinians. That mutual accommodation is the lowest common denominator of any successful diplomacy. Core needs, of course, are far more limited than maximum demands. Proposed solutions could be modest e.g., intended to gradually create a framework for diplomatic success, or large-scale e.g., intended to introduce an outline of what could amount to a final settlement.

Hopefully, such an exercise can lead to more focused debate and discussion on the historic dispute and avoid some of the pitfalls of earlier threads.

Assumptions:
• The historic dispute is not irreconcilable.
• Over time an accommodation could be feasible.

Constraints:
To be valid, the approach would need to address the core needs of both peoples (Israelis and Palestinians). Those core needs are:

• Land for a possible state for Palestinians.
• Security for Israel.

Therefore, approaches that do not address the core needs of both peoples are off the table. Some examples of such approaches would include:

• Perpetuation of the status quo: Would not address the Palestinians’ core need.
• Any single-state solution: Would entail the elimination of Israel and undermine its core needs.
• A “right of return” of Palestinian refugees and their descendants to Israel: Would entail the elimination of Israel via demographic change and undermine its core needs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It should be assumed that the dispute is not irreconcilable, even if some elements e.g., Hamas, have irreconcilable demands.

Your bad at this.
Dont use one sided examples.
 
Last edited:
• Land for a possible state for Palestinians.
• Security for Israel.

Funny how no one ever adresses palestines SECURITY needs.
Considering it has the highest civilian body count, I would think it would be highly relevant.
Interesting that it is NEVER mentioned by pro Israeli posters.

Once again, palestinian security is a mere afterthought, not even paid lip service.
 
Last edited:
• Any single-state solution: Would entail the elimination of Israel and undermine its core needs.
• A “right of return” of Palestinian refugees and their descendants to Israel: Would entail the elimination of Israel via demographic change and undermine its core needs.


This is objectively false. And no basis to begin the discussion on.
 
Nice work on a thoroughly biased and useless post don.
 
1 -- abandon the two state solution, and focus on a three state solution.

2 -- Provide Israel with defensable borders, but either remove some settlements or let those living in them know they will soon be living in a new country in order to provide contiguous borders for new Palestinian state.

3 -- bring in Egypt and Jordan as potential partners in peace

4 -- hope for a miracle.
 
• Any single-state solution: Would entail the elimination of Israel and undermine its core needs.

Not necessarily. A single nation structured as a confederation, with semi-autonomous Palestinian and Israeli enclaves, might provide the proper balance between maintaining ethnic identity while untangling the real estate questions.

As I see it, these are the competing desires:


  • Israel wants a distinctly Jewish state.
  • Palestinians want a distinctly Arab/Palestinian state.
  • Both want their state in the "Holy Land" along the river Jordan and around Jerusalem.
If we declare the desires irreconcilable, then all that is left for both sides is war. This is, take note, the status quo.

The solution, then, is to find a way to let both sides get what they want.

A confederated single state entity would let both sides maintain their ethnic identities in politically distinct enclaves, while allowing them to co-exist on the same land. Jerusalem could serve as the capital for both, with the Israeli and Palestinian enclaves having to come to consensus only on international matters.
 
1. A single state solution where Israel is the only country. The Arab Palestinians can move to Jordan as that was their partition of the British Mandate.

2. The Palestinian Arabs can live in Israel as Israeli citizens like the other Arabs who make up roughly 20% of Israel's population.

3. We have the two state solution plan where Israel exists next to the West Bank and Gaza.

4. We have a 3 state solution plan where Gaza and the West Bank are independent countries.

I personally support numbers 1 and 2. The Palestinians already had Jordan, and then expanded, and then expanded again. There is no need for another Arab nation in the Middle East. And regardless they would be much better off living in Israel as citizens, they get the freedoms they want and can live within one of the highest qualities of life in the Middle East.
 
Not necessarily. A single nation structured as a confederation, with semi-autonomous Palestinian and Israeli enclaves, might provide the proper balance between maintaining ethnic identity while untangling the real estate questions.

Celticlord,

Past negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians revealed that such an outcome is a redline for Israel. Israel will not accept a solution that changes the character of its nation and runs counter to the original intent of UN General Assembly Resolution 181, which sought to create an Arab and Jewish state. That's why Israel rejects a "right of return" to Israel for Palestinian refugees and their descendants. The historic experience with ethnic conflicts also suggests that a single state idea would probably not be feasible (something both the Peel Commission and UNSCOP agreed on).

Where some kind of joint sovereignty--out of necessity--might work could be East Jerusalem. Such a measure would give the Palestinians a capital in East Jerusalem. It would allow Israel to retain an undivided Jerusalem.

Under such a framework, a single Jerusalem city government could be elected by all the city's residents--Arabs having Palestinian citizenship and Jews Israeli citizenship--and continue to provide the services the city's residents need. Access to holy places would also remain unrestricted.
 
Your bad at this.
Dont use one sided examples.

Real Talk,

The assumption is that Hamas and its Charter would not be an insurmountable obstacle to reaching agreement. Hamas' current charter makes an irreconcilable demand, as it calls for Israel's elimination and rejects compromise. The Hamas Charter is what it is.
 
Here's my two-states solution:

First of all, the Palestinian state:

-The Palestinians get the 1967 lands(West Bank, Gaza).
-A tunnel or some other form of passage is being built to connect between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank territories.
-Israel removes the road blocks, barriers from the West Bank.

Second, Israeli security:

-The US or NATO or some other western body trains the Palestinian police and inter-security forces to counter terrorism.*
-The Palestinian state is taking responsibility to prevent any kind of attack from its borders on Israel.
-The Palestinians vow to stop the hatred incitement in the education system and media of their state.
-Palestinians dismantle all of their terrorist organizations and cut ties with any terrorist entity, especially those who are hostile to Israel.
-The wall is taken down 1.5 years after the peace agreement is signed, and is only taken down if Israeli security was maintained to some degree during this time.*

Third, recognition:

-Each side recognizes and acknowledges the others' right to exist.
-Palestine recognizes Israel is a Jewish, democratic state.
-Israel recognizes Palestine is the Palestinians' sovereign state.

Fourth, refugees and settlements:

-Israel moves the Jewish settlements to the authority of the Palestinian government.*
-The Palestinians refugees receive compensations, but do not return to Israel, and instead live in the Palestinian state.

Fifth, Jerusalem:

-Jerusalem stays as the Israeli capital, and stays under the authority of Israel.*
-The Palestinians are given free pass to the holy places in Jerusalem, and are free to pray there.

Sixth, Israel-Palestine relations:

-Both nations take steps to reduce the hatred between the two people.
-Israel would have an economic trade with Palestine to boost the relations between the two nations.
-Palestinians are allowed to visit Israel.
-Israelis are allowed to visit Palestine.

Steps marked with a * are steps I'm willing to argue about.

Peace. :2wave:
 
- Two state solution, neither side controlling Jerusalem or having it as their capital.
- A 3 state solution with Jerusalem a seperate state.
Or
- A 4 state in which W Bank and Gaza are seperate and so is Jerusalem all living alongside Israel

All Arabs recognizing Israel and vice versa.
And Palestinians military only defensive
 
1. A single state solution where Israel is the only country. The Arab Palestinians can move to Jordan as that was their partition of the British Mandate.

Jordan would not accept this, especially as Jordan already has a sometimes restive Palestinian population. Jordan has also ruled out a confederation with the West Bank, as well.

Removal of the Palestinian people from the West Bank is not feasible and would run counter to the Palestinians' core needs.

3. We have the two state solution plan where Israel exists next to the West Bank and Gaza.

4. We have a 3 state solution plan where Gaza and the West Bank are independent countries.

I personally support numbers 1 and 2. The Palestinians already had Jordan, and then expanded, and then expanded again. There is no need for another Arab nation in the Middle East. And regardless they would be much better off living in Israel as citizens, they get the freedoms they want and can live within one of the highest qualities of life in the Middle East.

The first approach would not be feasible given Jordan's position on the issue and the position held by Palestinians. It is extremely unlikely that the Palestinians would consent to become Jordanian citizens, much less vacate the West Bank. The key is to find an approach that accommodates their needs and enhances Israel's security. It will probably take a lot of time, but the third and fourth steps you cite probably offer the best mechanism toward that end. Of course, a lot of careful planning, time, and effort would be required before that end state is reached.
 
Real Talk,

The assumption is that Hamas and its Charter would not be an insurmountable obstacle to reaching agreement. Hamas' current charter makes an irreconcilable demand, as it calls for Israel's elimination and rejects compromise. The Hamas Charter is what it is.

And so is the position fo several israeli political movements. But u didnt mention these.
So are the positions of extremist settlers, but u didnt mention these.
U just mentioned hamas. And doing so is a really crappy way of going about things like this.

p.s. Hamas' actual position being ireconcilable is pure speculation. All you are basing your assumption on is their RHETORIC. For all you know, there are many outcomes they would accept. I would suspect that there are. And you did not even state it as a presumption, but as a FACT.


So why did u feel the ened to slip in that little slice of demonisation?
Did it contribute anythign other than generating hostility and a perception of bias on the part of yourself?

The answer is clearly no.
 
Last edited:
Celticlord,

Past negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians revealed that such an outcome is a redline for Israel. Israel will not accept a solution that changes the character of its nation and runs counter to the original intent of UN General Assembly Resolution 181, which sought to create an Arab and Jewish state. That's why Israel rejects a "right of return" to Israel for Palestinian refugees and their descendants. The historic experience with ethnic conflicts also suggests that a single state idea would probably not be feasible (something both the Peel Commission and UNSCOP agreed on).

Where some kind of joint sovereignty--out of necessity--might work could be East Jerusalem. Such a measure would give the Palestinians a capital in East Jerusalem. It would allow Israel to retain an undivided Jerusalem.

Under such a framework, a single Jerusalem city government could be elected by all the city's residents--Arabs having Palestinian citizenship and Jews Israeli citizenship--and continue to provide the services the city's residents need. Access to holy places would also remain unrestricted.

None of this supports your initial statement.
Your statement was false.

Here is the statement:

"Any single-state solution: Would entail the elimination of Israel and undermine its core needs.
• A “right of return” of Palestinian refugees and their descendants to Israel: Would entail the elimination of Israel via demographic change and undermine its core needs.


Basically, stop talking ****.
 
Last edited:
Gardener, Laila and Apocalypse, IMO you have offered some really constructive ideas. I'll probably provide some thoughts a little later, as well, but there will be common ground with what both of you have suggested.
 
All Arabs recognizing Israel and vice versa.
And Palestinians military only defensive

But the israeli one offensive?
Where do these ideas come from?
 
And so is the position fo several israeli political movements.

If you're talking about such groups as Kach, I strongly agree. The list was not meant to be all-inconclusive. I provided an example in making the argument that the assumption should be that peace is feasible. If, in fact, the differences are truly irreconcilable, then no diplomatic solution is possible. It would be self-defeating for a discussion of possible solutions to make such an assumption.
 
I agree with the ideas of Apocalypse, the majority of them anyway.
If only those at the top also agreed with those ideas we might be done with the conflict alot sooner.

What about TM tho?
It's important to all 3 religions if i remember. Who would take control or protect it?
If we say it is seperate from Israel and Palestine, does NATO and UN get called? A joint army of Israelis/Palestinians?
 
But the israeli one offensive?
Where do these ideas come from?

Well Palestinians can sign an agreement, Join the League of Arab States in other words where one of the goals is to "safeguard their independence and sovereignty".
If Israel attacked Palestine unprovoked, Arab nations surrounding Israel would have the right to retaliate and Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt all have offensive weapons as well. Saudi's fund their military well.
 
If you're talking about such groups as Kach, I strongly agree. The list was not meant to be all-inconclusive. I provided an example in making the argument that the assumption should be that peace is feasible. If, in fact, the differences are truly irreconcilable, then no diplomatic solution is possible. It would be self-defeating for a discussion of possible solutions to make such an assumption.

I understand your position but using the example of hamas like that was an extremely poor choice. Especially when used in isolation. It is, at best, one sided framing of the debate.
 
Last edited:
Well Palestinians can sign an agreement, Join the League of Arab States in other words where one of the goals is to "safeguard their independence and sovereignty".
If Israel attacked Palestine unprovoked, Arab nations surrounding Israel would have the right to retaliate and Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt all have offensive weapons as well. Saudi's fund their military well.

So the plaestinians should rely for security on outside powers against a nuclear armed agressor?
Some security gurantee!
No. A palestinian state means a state with the right to defend itself, and the right to develop a capability to do so.

I think this may be a sticking point for Israel.
 
Last edited:
So the plaestinians should rely for security on outside powers against a nuclear armed agressor?
Some security gurantee!

Works well for Japan.
Japan has the protection of the West and US in many cases.
If Palestinians gave up their weapons, the duty of care falls on the West and surrounding nations.
If Israel did attack Palestinians unprovoked and unarmed knowing Palestine has no offensive weapons, i highly doubt they'd be regarded as a country anymore.
 
Jordan would not accept this, especially as Jordan already has a sometimes restive Palestinian population. Jordan has also ruled out a confederation with the West Bank, as well.

Removal of the Palestinian people from the West Bank is not feasible and would run counter to the Palestinians' core needs.



The first approach would not be feasible given Jordan's position on the issue and the position held by Palestinians. It is extremely unlikely that the Palestinians would consent to become Jordanian citizens, much less vacate the West Bank. The key is to find an approach that accommodates their needs and enhances Israel's security. It will probably take a lot of time, but the third and fourth steps you cite probably offer the best mechanism toward that end. Of course, a lot of careful planning, time, and effort would be required before that end state is reached.

I agree, I personally would like to see 1&2 happen, but I understand it is highly highly unlikely. The only thing I fear is that if a two or three state solution were to be reached, that the Palestinian nation(s) would attack Israel, like what Gaza is doing through the election of Hamas. There are some Palestinian political parties (like Hamas) that don't call for a Palestinian nation, but for the complete eradication of Israel (and in Hamas' case, all Jews). I fear that if a three state solution were to happen, that one of the states would be more militant and would first try and take over the other Palestinian state, and then attack Israel with the help of the Arab league. It is going to take careful planning and an ideology change on both sides for a peaceful co-existence to happen. It's a bumpy road but I hope peace gets reached very soon, and I hope within the final plan Israel is not short-changed or attacked in the long run. That seems to have been the end result with any attempts at peace thus far.
 
Works well for Japan.
Japan has the protection of the West and US in many cases.
If Palestinians gave up their weapons, the duty of care falls on the West and surrounding nations.
If Israel did attack Palestinians unprovoked and unarmed knowing Palestine has no offensive weapons, i highly doubt they'd be regarded as a country anymore.

Japans sponsor is itself nuclear armed and has massive bases in the country.
Not to mention japan has one of the largest, most well equiped, and well trained armies in the region.

And what youa re tlaking about is BASICALLY the status quo.
The idea a palestinian state would be militarily WEAKER than it is now is a farce.
Not in a 2 state solution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom