Ok so that's unrealistic. — schopenhauer1

It's only unrealistic for as long the West thinks an inherently racist basis for a nation is worth supporting.

It's only unrealistic for as long the West thinks an inherently racist basis for a nation is worth supporting. — Benkei

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14754/western-civilization/p1

It seems we are mostly in agreement then, but on the most important point we diverge:

1. Renounce the idea of turning Israel into a Jewish nation state. — Tzeentch

Ok so that's unrealistic. Israel's whole existence is to have a place in the world where there can't be more pogroms and holocausts (which makes this of course all the more traumatic). — schopenhauer1

Yes. Israel was created with the idea of providing Jews with a safe haven. There is nothing inherently wrong with that idea, except for the fact that Britain and France chose to worst possible way to go about it and now we have to deal with the imperfect situation they created.

Lets also acknowledge that Israel is a far cry from the safe haven that it was supposed to be, and unless a different path is chosen this is unlikely to change.


Now we have the problem that on the territory of Israel + the occupied territories, there live roughly as many Jews as Muslims. This is the fundamental issue.

I'm assuming everybody in this thread agrees that:
1. Apartheid is unacceptable. That means equal rights for Jews and Muslims.
2. Ethnic cleansing / forced displacement is unacceptable.

That means that the demographics as they are now are basically what we have to work with. This means that Israel cannot be a Jewish nation state, since half its population is Muslim.


A two-state solution is, in my opinion, unworkable from literally every perspective. You'd simply end up with two extremely vulnerable states, likely with plenty of animosity and territorial disputes between them. I would predict within ten or twenty years there'd be a conflict that wipes one or both states off the map. Not to mention the settlers on the West Bank are never going to leave peacefully.


What other options are there?

Yes. Israel was created with the idea of providing Jews with a safe haven. — Tzeentch

Apparently not:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/851448

There is nothing inherently wrong with that idea, except for the fact that Britain and France chose to worst possible way to go about it and now we have to deal with the imperfect situation they created. — Tzeentch

Yes.

Lets also acknowledge that Israel is a far cry from the safe haven that it was supposed to be, and unless a different path is chosen this is unlikely to change. — Tzeentch

Certainly.

I'm assuming everybody in this thread agrees that:
1. Apartheid is unacceptable. That means equal rights for Jews and Muslims.
2. Ethnic cleansing / forced displacement is unacceptable.

That means that the demographics as they are now are basically what we have to work with. This means that Israel cannot be a Jewish nation state, since half its population is Muslim.


A two-state solution is, in my opinion, unworkable from literally every perspective. You'd simply end up with two extremely vulnerable states, likely with plenty of animosity and territorial disputes. I would predict within ten or twenty years there'd be a conflict that wipes one or both states off the map. Not to mention the settlers on the West Bank are never going to leave peacefully.


What other options are there? — Tzeentch

So this is where I keep railing against the idea of "I want my OLIVE GROVES". In other words, just as Israeli extremists who want to settle "Samaria and Judea" is wrong, so is this idea that every past event has to be relived and violently opposed by generations that follow. Palestinians have to want to live in peace and probably be okay with some sort of monetary compensation rather than land. Land is such an OVERRATED value. It's a fetish even. Israel needs some land, and Palestinians need some land. It doesn't need to be THAT land.

So this is where I keep railing against the idea of "I want my OLIVE GROVES". In other words, just as Israeli extremists who want to settle "Samaria and Judea" is wrong, so is this idea that every past event has to be relived and violently opposed by generations that follow. Palestinians have to want to live in peace and probably be okay with some sort of monetary compensation rather than land. Land is such an OVERRATED value. It's a fetish even. Israel needs some land, and Palestinians need some land. It doesn't need to be THAT land. — schopenhauer1

I'm not sure what you mean.

If we assume for a moment a new secular state is created, then no one would be forced to move. Everybody could live where they currently do, or move to other places within Israel voluntarily. Of course some sort of reconciliation would have to have taken place.

Are you suggesting paying Palestinians money to leave voluntarily, or letting them settle some new land?

If we assume for a moment a new secular state is created, then no one would be forced to move. Everybody could live where they currently do, or move to other places within Israel voluntarily. Of course some sort of reconciliation would have to have taken place.

Are you suggesting paying Palestinians money to leave voluntarily, or letting them settle some new land? — Tzeentch

I'm talking a usual sticking point, the "right of return" from 1948 War. But also, let's say Israel deems that there are parts of the West Bank that are strategically very hard for Israel to maintain security and have to have some Israeli oversight, those kind of things as well. But that's getting to the nitty-gritty.

I'm talking a usual sticking point, the "right of return" from 1948 War. — schopenhauer1

In a secular state, the land would belong to all citizens, people would be free to move wherever, assuming there is housing available.

But also, let's say Israel deems that there are parts of the West Bank that are strategically very hard for Israel to maintain security and have to have some Israeli oversight, those kind of things as well. — schopenhauer1

The Israeli army would remain the Israeli army, but would be ran by both Israelis and Palestinians. So theoretically it would double the manpower pool from which the Israeli army can tap.

Further, I think the single greatest contribution to Israeli security would be solving the issue of millions of angry Palestinians that are sitting within its de facto borders.

To be clear, I don't think it would be easy to arrive at a secular state. But necessary, perhaps.

I'm talking a usual sticking point, the "right of return" from 1948 War.
— schopenhauer1

In a secular state, the land would belong to all citizens, people would be free to move wherever, assuming there is housing available. — Tzeentch

Right of return is the idea that Palestinians who previously lived on specific tracts of land that are now lived in by Israeli Jews have the right to those specific properties back (or their descendents have that right). It's not just about the general ability for them to freely move around the area.

Either Jews have to be moved out or Palestinians have to accept reparations, someone has to give something up either way.

Right of return is the idea that Palestinians who previously lived on specific tracts of land that are now lived in by Israeli Jews have the right to those specific properties back (or their descendents have that right). It's not just about the general ability for them to freely move around the area.

Either Jews have to be moved out or Palestinians have to accept reparations, someone has to give something up either way. — flannel jesus

Interesting detail to be aware of is that those Arabs were mostly expelled and the remainder fled. And since we usually don't reward thieves, the Israelis will have to move out AND pay reparations. Since Israelis have such extensive experience in colonising areas, they should easily be able to move to another place within Israel.

Well, expelling more people from their decades-long homes is not the way forward.

One would have to start somewhere, and the idea that every Israeli owes every Palestinian their home and reparations is obviously not a viable starting point.

There'd have to be an acceptance of the state of things in the present day, though that doesn't mean past grievances shouldn't be addressed. Indeed that is a fundamental part of reconciliation.

Assuming goodwill on both sides, I'm sure some proper substance can be given to the right of return, like housing projects or priority when houses become vacant.

Israel needs some land, and Palestinians need some land. — schopenhauer1

It's so difficult to be even handed. The fact is that Israel has some land, and Palestine has none.

Palestinians need some Palestine. One has to start where one is, and where one is is that there is Israel and there is not Palestine; instead there are enclaves and territories, autonomous regions and refugee camps. So one is on one side condemning a government and on the other side condemning a resistance movement / terrorist organisation/ bunch of landless refugees.

There are something like 13.5 million Palestinians, and there is no Palestine, and no other country in the world is prepared to absorb them. If there was somewhere they could go to, Gaza would be almost empty years ago. The one thing we can all agree on here is we don't want them in our back yard. We're happy enough to tell Israel what they ought to do and not do, while shutting down immigration as fast as we can.

And the one state solution is fine as long as you don't have to live there. Some 7 million Jews do not want any more to be always in the minority, but they are outnumbered nearly 2 to 1 by Palestinians.

So the first step towards a solution as I see it is to deal with the refugees that have been stuck in camps their whole lives, by welcoming them into Europe and The US and Canada, and anywhere else with decent civilised peace loving and wealthy populations. That would ease the pressure all round and show a tad of commitment to a peaceful solution. I'm all for finger wagging as a rule, but it just doesn't seem to be working in this case.

In a secular state, the land would belong to all citizens, people would be free to move wherever, assuming there is housing available. — Tzeentch

I just don't think under the circumstances of the world order, how these two groups want to be governed (Jewish or Arab Muslim polities), this is feasible. This isn't the United States, they are countries with obvious ethnic/religious differences that would lead things that would start the cycle again but in a civil war fashion. Either way, the reality as it is now wouldn't even get to that solution. In other words, I just see it as a non-solution. If that's the case, let's redraw the whole middle east as a secular United States of the Middle East run in the manner that George Washington and James Madison intended for that region. It can't be any worse than the Sykes-Picot British and French (and European generally) version we have now.

The Israeli army would remain the Israeli army, but would be ran by both Israelis and Palestinians. So theoretically it would double the manpower pool from which the Israeli army can tap.

Further, I think the single greatest contribution to Israeli security would be solving the issue of millions of angry Palestinians that are sitting within its de facto borders. — Tzeentch

Although I think you have good intentions with this type of solution, I just don't see it being a reality unless people start smoking some serious shrooms and question what reality is in general let alone "Palestinian" and "Israeli", "grievance" "land", "right of return", "settlements" and any other conceptual framework that is trapping human beings in this made up social artifice. That is to say, I think it rather fantastical as a solution.

Right of return is the idea that Palestinians who previously lived on specific tracts of land that are now lived in by Israeli Jews have the right to those specific properties back. It's not just about the general ability for them to freely move around the area. — flannel jesus

Yeah I wasn't thinking otherwise, and that is precisely what has to be compromised. Intergenerational grievances have to be given up, just as loony settlers and backers in the Likud on the West Bank have to give up something, etc.

Interesting detail to be aware of is that those Arabs were mostly expelled and the remainder fled. And since we usually don't reward thieves, the Israelis will have to move out AND pay reparations. Since Israelis have such extensive experience in colonising areas, they should easily be able to move to another place within Israel. — Benkei

This is just needlessly stoking flames to live on forever. At some point, give up the grievance game. It's almost as if peace was made by giving up right of return, you would call for more violence which is scarier than anything I've seen thus far in terms of moral reasoning. All of history is a wrong in some way. But certainly continual hatred and death is not a great option if given choices for something else.

And since we usually don't reward thieves — Benkei

But we should reward land to people who would treat women and LGBTQ people like dirt? Until the Arab countries stop dehumanizing women and minorities, they should be treated as inferior to other, more equitable, nations.

But we should reward land to people who would treat women and LGBTQ people like dirt? — RogueAI

No, but their land is not ours to give them is it? It's theirs.

No, but their land is not ours to give them is it? It's theirs. — bert1

I think his point was at which indignation does one choose focus on?

Until the Arab countries stop dehumanizing women and minorities, they should be treated as inferior to other, more equitable, nations. — RogueAI

That's a different issue isn't it? Or can we set Israel on any country that is worse than it on these terms? Get them to colonise China perhaps. Now there's a thought.

I think his point was at indignation does one choose? — schopenhauer1

Did you type that right? I can't make sense of it.

The one thing we can all agree on here is we don't want them in our back yard. We're happy enough to tell Israel what they ought to do and not do, while shutting down immigration as fast as we can. — unenlightened

True enough, I mentioned the PLO in Jordan (ended with them being kicked out and the assassination of the Jordanian prime minister), and then a reformation in Lebanon. Seems both countries didn't fair well from various political groups that formed there. Someone mentioned the Palestinians were kicked out of Kuwait for encouraging Saddam's invasion. However, I doubt these types of agitation would happen in a non-middle eastern country...

So the first step towards a solution as I see it is to deal with the refugees that have been stuck in camps their whole lives, by welcoming them into Europe and The US and Canada, and anywhere else with decent civilised peace loving and wealthy populations. That would ease the pressure all round and show a tad of commitment to a peaceful solution. I'm all for finger wagging as a rule, but it just doesn't seem to be working in this case. — unenlightened

Are you aware of the politics surrounding this? Asking genuinely. Is it lack of wanting to move or lack of wanting the immigrants or both?

I fixed it right after. Did you not get the edited version?

We should have created Israel in some corner of the UK. Nice fertile soil. Not too hot. Tolerant and friendly locals. Way better than the Middle East, the East Midlands. At least that would have been ours to give away.

Did you not get the edited version? — schopenhauer1

Got it now, thanks. We shouldn't give land that isn't ours away to anyone, psychopathic colonists or gay-bashers alike.

Got it now, thanks. We shouldn't give land that isn't our away to anyone, psychopathic colonists or gay-bashers alike. — bert1

Granted, I just think that the grievance game isn't going to help anything and stoking it as a matter of policy is as morally questionable. If a great grandpa Hatfield stole your great grandfather McCoy's olive groves, and then McCoy proceeded to launch generations of deadly gruesome attacks on the Hatfields, the person encourages the McCoys is no moral hero either, even if there was a righteous cause at some point in the past. Native Americans reforming into bandits that rape and pillage Americans because of aggrieved past doesn't start making sense because... grievance.

This is just needlessly stoking flames to live on forever. — schopenhauer1

That's bullshit. What stokes the flames is that there are no consequences for these thieves so they continue to do it.

Sure, but the rape and pillage hasn't stopped yet, it's not in the past. We stopped raping and pillaging the natives when they had nothing left to take. The Palestinians still have some rubble, a couple of sticks and a frying pan, and hope. We can't stop yet.

That's bullshit. What stokes the flames is that there are no consequences for these thieves so they continue to do it. — Benkei

Cool, have fun ruling over your skulls and heads on pikes. Then YOU can be the Lord of the Flies.

Sure, but the rape and pillage hasn't stopped yet, it's not in the past. We stopped raping and pillaging the natives when they had nothing left to take. The Palestinians still have some rubble, a couple of sticks and a frying pan, and hope. We can't stop yet. — bert1

You're taking away a point I am not making. Rather, it's the grievance game that has to stop. You are encouraging it rather than thinking of solutions to it.

You're taking away a point I am not making. Rather, it's the grievance game that has to stop. You are encouraging it rather than thinking of solutions to it. — schopenhauer1

I just don't think it's a tit-for-tat grievance game. Or maybe it is between Hamas and Right-wing Israelis, but not between the Palestinian Territories and Israel. The basic concept of tit-for-tat is that both sides are equally at fault, or near-equal. Where that is the case, one side just has to take the last hit and say 'Enough! I won't retaliate'. But the situation is hopelessly lop-sided. The Palestinians, or even Hamas, are not in a position to say 'Enough! Stop!' because Israel will just carry on colonising anyway. Colonising is an act of aggression, just as much as the rockets. It is the powerful side that must say 'Enough! We won't retaliate." Not doubt Hamas would continue with the rockets but only a Palestinian state can stop that.

But the situation is hopelessly lop-sided. The Palestinians, or even Hamas, are not in a position to say 'Enough! Stop!' because Israel will just carry on colonising anyway. Colonising is an act of aggression, just as much as the rockets. It is the powerful side that must say 'Enough! We won't retaliate." Not doubt Hamas would continue with the rockets but only a Palestinian state can stop that. — bert1

We've already recounted the history numerous times here. First off, you would be against Israel in 1948 as you would in 1967, 1973, 1982, etc. So what would it matter. Just the existence of a state called "Israel" would be wrong so that then becomes a non-starter for any argument it seems.

However, assuming you are for a state called Israel, no doubt Netanyahu and Likud do not represent a fair policy. But let's say that is something I have always maintained (which I have), what is in question in this particular round of arguments is the "right of return". It is examples of these sticking points that make compromise neigh impossible. These are the things the sideliners have to encourage to perhaps "give up" (and grow up) so that people can move forward without the grievance game. As I said, in this case, possession of a "particular' piece of land becomes a fetish. A tool for more violence and no peace rather than a moral point of justice. History and justice obviously doesn't work that way. In some sense it is more Hegelian in that various wrongs become a reality. Was it wrong for Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and the rest to even exist and be carved out of the Ottoman Empire? Well, Britain and France won that war and the Ottomans' didn't put up enough stink against their dissolution. As far as those in charge in the Arab populations, they became various vassal-kings (Faisals and the like) that then were deposed for various Marxist-leaning Arab League guys, etc. etc. It's all a big batch of failures but it is the reality now of the hodgepodge of injustices and contingent happenings that are now the reality. We now call Iraq and Syria and Lebanon a real "entity" even though they are in no way native to the people's of that region. I am trying to broaden the view to some extent to how history works, and it is not in the moral justice way you seem to think.

Are you aware of the politics surrounding this? Asking genuinely. Is it lack of wanting to move or lack of wanting the immigrants or both? — schopenhauer1

No one wants to give up their home, and especially not under coercion and with no compensation. But in the situation that prevails, it would not be expensive to make a realistic promise of a better life to people living in awful conditions for years and years. Fuck the politics, I would be wanting my children safe from being buried alive or blown to pieces.

Fuck the politics, I would be wanting my children safe from being buried alive or blown to pieces. — unenlightened

For sure. One would hope/think.