The moderate Israel\Palestine discussion thread...

quantumechanic

Registered Member
#1
As the name of the thread suggests, I would like to discuss the Israeli\Palestinian conflict. Since I view myself as a moderate, and since my experience in this subject has shown me that the wider the gap between the opinions, the more heated (and less objective) is the discussion, I would like to ask anyone of radical opinions (of whatever denomintion) not to bother joining in.
What I would like to discuss are the following questions:
1) Is any one side, in particular, to blame for starting, or maintaining the conflict?
2) Does this matter? If one side is more to blame than the other, is this a consideration in analyzing where the conflict stands today?
3) Is this conflict solveable? Can you picture a world in which the Palestinians have their own country, free of Israeli control and the Israelis will be free to live their lives without having to fear Palestinian terrorism?
 
Last edited:

Wade8813

Registered Member
#3
Sometimes even the best of threads get buried.

You can request that only 'moderates' (whatever that means) participate, but if the most fanatical person in the world wants to, he or she can post here long as the rules of the forum are followed.


As for your questions -

1. Both sides have a long history there, and I'm not sure if it matters who was there first. Both sides have done a lot of horrible things to each other, but it does seem that at one point Israel made a series of good faith attempts to resolve things.

2. I think knowing who to blame matters a lot for resolving this - if you know who/what is to blame, you can better take steps to address it.

3. Theoretically, it's quite solvable. But I doubt it's going to happen. Too many people on both sides hold grudges. The area has strong religious significance to both sides. The Arab nations surrounding them don't particularly want to help Palestine (although they're more than willing to hurt Israel). And many Arabs will only be happy when Israel ceases to exist entirely.
 
#4
i think palestinians must be free. every year israel army does operation to gaza and other palestine provinces. at every operations, thousands of innocent people die. millions of jewish came palestine region in 1947. before 1947, there was palestinian people.
 

Sim

Registered Member
#5
Very good topic! Somehow, I missed this thread when it appeared in the first place.

As the name of the thread suggests, I would like to discuss the Israeli\Palestinian conflict. Since I view myself as a moderate, and since my experience in this subject has shown me that the wider the gap between the opinions, the more heated (and less objective) is the discussion, I would like to ask anyone of radical opinions (of whatever denomintion) not to bother joining in.
What I would like to discuss are the following questions:
1) Is any one side, in particular, to blame for starting, or maintaining the conflict?
I don't think you can blame one side alone. Both sides have their share of responsibility, in my opinion. As for the situation today, I think neither the hawkish Netanjahu government nor Hamas are willing for peace and both can be blamed for maintaining the conflict.

In general, I'd say those on both sides are to blame, who are opposed to a two state solution. On the Arab side, it's those people who cling to the idea of destroying Israel. On the Israeli side, it's those who believe the entire West Bank belongs to Israel, for religious or other reasons. My feeling is that there are more Israelis ready for peace, than Palestinians, but I could be wrong.

But when looking at the past decade, I think the Palestinian side missed more opportunities than the Israeli side. Arafat's failure to sign the peace treaty in 2000 was a huge mistake on the side of the Palestinians. Barak and later Sharon showed some will for compromise, whereas Netanjahu and Hamas are not at all ready for peace.

2) Does this matter? If one side is more to blame than the other, is this a consideration in analyzing where the conflict stands today?
I think both sides must stop looking into the past, blaming each other and fighting who started it, but look into the future instead, for the sake of their children. For finding a peace both sides can agree on, it doesn't matter who started it. The only thing that matters is that both sides will stop harming each other.

3) Is this conflict solveable? Can you picture a world in which the Palestinians have their own country, free of Israeli control and the Israelis will be free to live their lives without having to fear Palestinian terrorism?
At least I hope so. But to achieve that, people on both sides will have to change a lot.

But there is one thing I told an Israeli and a few Arab friends: My country, Germany, used to be a bitter enemy of France and other neighbors. For centuries, it was impossible to imagine there will ever be anything than hatred between our peoples. But eventually, we have overcome this massive mutual hatred, and France and Germany are the closest partners and friends in Europe. We could make it, so I want to believe Israelis and Palestinians can make it too.
 
#6
O Jerusalem, take heed. The current situation in Israel is untenable; there is an unending conflict between the Palestinians and the Jews. Jewish inhabitants distrust the Palestinians, and vice versa. The age-old struggle between them has cost many lives, much hardship and untold sorrow. The conflict has generated tremendous anger, hatred and distrust – forcing them to live under a single umbrella has proven to be a formula for unending friction.


In order to allow a chance for peace in the Middle East, something has to give. Wars will not bring an end to it, as they have been going on for centuries with no resolution. Negotiations and mediations between the parties have not worked either.


The two peoples cannot continue to be forced to live together in the contrived single state of Israel. THEY NEED TO BE PERMANENTLY SEPARATED. A new state needs to be formed for the Palestinian occupants of Israel. The only practical solution is to have the new state created with continuous borders and a sea port.


The Gaza Strip is already populated by Palestinians, and it has a sea port. The West Bank is also populated with many Palestinians, so the two should be connected with land. This means that there should be no reason for a citizen of the new Palestinian state to have to cross into Israel to reach some part of his or her country. Likewise, there should be no reason for Israelis to need to cross the Palestinian borders to reach any part of Israel. This will eliminate much of the friction at the borders.


Also, neighbouring countries should consider granting some land to the Palestinians, so that the new state has enough land to reasonably house its people and become a viable nation state.


Jerusalem is a major sticking point in regard to a two-state solution, which affects not only the parties, but peace in the region. Both sides have long-standing reasons to be inflexible regarding the city. Both sides have long historical, cultural and religious reasons for their intransigence regarding Jerusalem. This has led many people to insist that the two-state solution have a shared Jerusalem. That is, severing Jerusalem in twain, part to one nation and part to another, or granting co-ownership of the city to both nation states. Are either of these proposals wise?


The twentieth century saw what happened when secular powers divided up Berlin into sections. The situation was so bellicose that the Berlin Wall was erected to section off the city. For decades, the Wall divided the people and caused tremendous misery until it was finally demolished.
The same mentality of erecting “Berlin Walls” is very active in modern-day Israel, as is seen by the walled-off sections of the West Bank. Fencing off sections of Berlin did not work, and it should not be encouraged in Jerusalem. Further, if there are national borders running through the city of Jerusalem, it will guarantee that there will be continued friction and bloodshed in the city.


It is understood that neither party wants to relinquish all rights to Jerusalem, but, in reality, to have lasting peace in the area, is there any other choice? I suggest that there is not. Many centuries of conflict support my position. Therefore, in my opinion, Jerusalem should either be wholly within the nation of Israel or wholly within the newly created Palestinian state. To accomplish this, one side or the other would necessarily have to relinquish Jerusalem voluntarily, if it is to be settled amicably. It should be realized that the side that vacates Jerusalem should be amply compensated for it when boundaries for the two newly-formed nation states are drawn.


Clearly, both parties’ claims to Jerusalem are heavily based on religious grounds. If neither side will voluntarily relinquish the city, then, after solemn prayers, a lot should be cast over which nation state will house Jerusalem. Those who sincerely believe in the Divine should accept that the lot will result in the Divine’s will being carried out.


I have seen the future for the area presently known as Israel if a two-state solution is not soon implemented, with one of the nation states having exclusive control and ownership of Jerusalem. The future will certainly be filled with many more tears and much more sorrow for everyone in the area. This future can be changed if Jerusalem is given over to one side or the other, and two separate and independent nations are created soon. If this does not happen, I have foreseen that one, later to be known by a name that sounds something like “Ahmad Mahmud” will emerge and take Jerusalem down, and nobody will have it ever after.


Amitakh Stanford
 

stevenfermi

Registered Member
#7
I will try to be as bipartisan as possible. :D
1) Is any one side, in particular, to blame for starting, or maintaining the conflict?

Well, the conflict started under plausible grounds--during and after the war for independence, Israel wanted the Palestinians out of their new territory, most of the time using gentle force, however (not killings en masse). So, like any forced move, they were pissed. While they being refugees is questionable, the Palestinians were certainly displaced and very pissed about it.
So, for 60 years, they have fought back and forth with Israel, throwing rockets, and other destructive forces into Israel. Israel in kind has bombed them, but neither has tried continuously to acheive peace. The closest was Yitzhak Rabin, but he was assissinated, so...

2) Does this matter? If one side is more to blame than the other, is this a consideration in analyzing where the conflict stands today?

It doesn't really matter, apart from the fact that Israel gets the condemnation from the outside world, while Palestinians are portrayed for the most part as the innocent lambs, casualities of a cruel war. I would say that while Palestinians have definitely prolonged the conflict, the conflict today is the same as it has been for many, many years.

3) Is this conflict solveable? Can you picture a world in which the Palestinians have their own country, free of Israeli control and the Israelis will be free to live their lives without having to fear Palestinian terrorism?

Solveable... maybe. I don't know. It isn't black and white, and despite what they say, the Palestinians will never be happy with these small isles of territory. The Middle East will probably not be fixed in the near future, and the Arab states really, really want the Israelis gone.
 

Boredie

In need of Entertainment
#8
Well, the conflict started under plausible grounds--during and after the war for independence, Israel wanted the Palestinians out of their new territory, most of the time using gentle force, however (not killings en masse). So, like any forced move, they were pissed. While they being refugees is questionable, the Palestinians were certainly displaced and very pissed about it.
That is a misconception. :shake: They left and fled of their own accord. Israel never, ever forced any Palestinians out of their homes after the war. Israel was quite happy to let them remain.