What is your preferred outcome to the Israel/Palestine dispute?

[Reffo]

johnvonneumann

It seems to me that you and I are more or less on the same wavelength.

[dayag]

In fact, the question is too ambiguous. Does "preferred solution" refer to what we think would be ideal in an ideal world or what we think is possible in this world?...

I intended it to be what you would really like to see happen in an ideal world. Sorry for any ambiguousness.

[Bat Tziyon]

I intended it to be what you would really like to see happen in an ideal world. Sorry for any ambiguousness.

Well now. In an ideal/perfect world, the wonderful UN funds the total transfer of Palestinians to Arab states.

[johnvonneumann]

Perhaps in an ideal world most Palestinians would be like Amos Yarkoni.

[Palestinian]

What is your preferred outcome to the Israel/Palestine dispute?

Well, its hard to say... At the moment, I haven't a clue what I prefer. Although, from what it looks like, the most compatible solution to the conflict would be two states. It has been said many times that both sides need to make "concessions". There is a mis-understanding on this though. The Palestinians made their concession. In November 1988, the Palestinian National Legislative Body met and recognized Israel with 80% of their historic Palestine. So, they made concessions when they conceded 80% of their historic homeland. And now all they are asking for is approximately 20% of their historic homeland. Now it the obligation on Israel to withdrawl to the pre-1967 borders.

I won't really be going into much detail... I'm exhausted, so not really in the mood to think.

[Reffo]

Palestinian

Please, spare us. This whole conflict between Palestinian Arabs and Jews has never been about the quantity of land. The Arab peoples were given plenty of land in the Middle East. You guys suffer from no shortage of land. If Israel would have got only one square inch of land on which an independent Jewish nation state would be declared, you guys would still object.

Now once again, let me lay to rest your myth that you are bargaining only for the remaining 20% of Palestine. I already showed you before that your statistics are wrong. Wrong because the Arabs were already given 80% of Palestine back in 1921 when East Palestine (which is today's Jordan) was handed to the Arabs. That was your first instalment and now you are trying to minimise the amount of land that Israel can have of the remaining 20% of the land.

By the way. I notice that you didn't vote in the poll for the two state solution even though you say you favour it. How do I know? Because before your post, I voted for the two state solution and that raised the tally to 3. Then came your post and after it, the tally is still 3.

[Bat Tziyon]

Now it the obligation on Israel to withdrawl to the pre-1967 borders.

Israel has no such obligation. The Palestinian people joined with others in war against Israel in 1967. Palestinians gambled and lost. There are implicit consequences when you wage a war of conquest and you lose. As I see it, it is the obligation of Palestinians to apologize for joining in wars and committing acts of terrorism against the Israeli people, and petition Israel for peace terms as did Egypt and Jordan.

[Cellis]

Two-State solution

This will not end the conflict.

Binational state

I voted for this but just check Turkey's ethnic population. There is a fight between Turks and Kurds since 70's.

Israel gets everything

Not possible without getting neighboring arabs involved in a Jewish-Muslim war.

Palestinians get everything

Does this mean another holocaust? Not possible.

other

What is other? Sending Palestine arabs to their homelands jordan, lebanon and egypt then Jews to germany, poland russia and desert the region to vultures and crows? Hmmm... Problem solved.

And to people who talk about 1947 or 1967 borders and settlements. Why specifically to 1967 borders but not 500 or 1000 or 2000 years back?

[johnvonneumann]

@Palestinian

Well, I am prepared to accept that what you write is sincere and that you are really in favour of a permanent two state solution and peace between the Jewish State and the new Arab one. However, I would like to know what is you opinion of the poll results here:

http://www.israelforum.com/board/sho...481#post333481

Put yourself in the place of the Jews: if you were in their place, would you really concede anything to people who hold the views shown by this poll?

Starting with the hadith about the need to kill Jews. This is not in the Koran and many Muslims scholars deny its authenticity: yet 73% percent of the Palestinians said they agreed with it. What does that mean? Does it not suggest to you that this 73% believe that Muslims should kill Jews whenever they have a chance to do so without bad consequences to themselves? Would not a reasonable person interpret this result in this way?

66% view a 2 state solution as a step to a one state one, which means the disappearance of Israel. Now, perhaps one might argue that they really don’t mean to destroy Israel, only wish to work for an eventual peaceful unification, but then remember the above hadith (and other replies in the poll).

Most Palestinans seem to prefer talks to violence. That would be encouraging except for the two things above. Right now the Palestinians now that if there is violence, they will always be the one who suffer more. But it need not be so in the future. If the results of the poll are correct, would it not be fair to assume that, for Israel, any Palestinian state would become a hostile and dangerous neighbour, a hotbed for terrorism, always waiting for an opportunity to to deliver a deadly blow to the Jews and fulfill the hadith. Are the Jews wrong to see things in this way? Why?

[johnvonneumann]

Not possible without getting neighboring arabs involved in a Jewish-Muslim war.

There are no grounds to believe that at all. Neighboring Arabs have shown extremely little inclination to die for the benefit of the Palestinians. Neither have Iranians nor Turks. Given the presence of nuclear weapons, the idea that any Arab states would go to war with Israel over this is even less plausible today than it has ever been. The only thing that Israel needs to be concerned about is the reaction of the US. That will depend on the situation - for example, should there be a repeat of 9/11 or something even bigger, such an action by Israel might well become acceptable to the US public and even the government. That is not to say that there are no other reasons for not choosing this as the best outcome, but the fear of the reaction of Arab (or even Muslim) states is not one of them.