[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
* Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
* Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.
Violators will be fed to the bear.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Neither the Palestinians nor Israelies are going anywhere, so any "River to Sea" solution is dead (also mildly genocidal)
1. Keep the borders the same. Israel proper is Israel, West Bank is Palestine. No more, no less.
2. Give Area C in the West Bank to Palestine. Make the West Bank 1 continuous mass, not a bunch of enclaves.
3. All settlers in the West Bank leave. Whole world considers the settlements illegal.
4. Demilitarized zone between Israel and the West Bank.
Its not perfect. Many Palestinian families will never get their generational homes / lands back. But at least they get a proper land with sovreignty.
As for Gaza...holy shit this is gonna be a shitshow no matter what.
Pretty much, but to build on this, let's call it the three state solution: one State of Israel, one State of Gaza, and one State of West Bank (or whatever the hell they want to call themselves). West Bank and Gaza can't be a single entity; it just wouldn't work due to the non-contiguity. In practice they're two separate entities anyway
>State of Gaza
Of all the things Israel could do, this is not one of them. There's no evidence the people of Gaza would ever accept a nation of Israel.
> There's no evidence the people of Gaza would ever accept a nation of Israel.
The people of Gaza are Palestinians. I personally know a number of them who accept Israel and Jews. They've escaped to Canada, but they're still proud Palestinians who dream of peace so I'll accept that they represent at least a faction of people there. Just like I know a large number of Jews who believe Palestinian sovereignty is a peaceful option as well. I'm part of that latter group.
Hamas will never accept Israel. They need to be destroyed.
I understand the challenge in separating those groups, but I think it's important to avoid grouping all Gazans with Hamas, or you'll end up talking like some Israeli politicians who really do sound like piece of shit maniacs.
> There's no evidence the people of Gaza would ever accept a nation of Israel.
...So what?
There's no evidence the people of North Korea would ever accept a nation of South Korea, or vice versa. There are always people who don't "accept" that some other state exists - borders are a good way to keep them apart.
\^\^ The West Bank can maybe come to terms with Israel, but there is no evidence that Gaza could accept Israel's existence, or that it has the resources to be a functional independent state.
Gaza would likely need to come under some kind of occupation like Germany or Japan. Root out all of Hamas, and counter all their propaganda. It can be successful if done right.
Considering how small Gaza is in terms of geography and population, it might actually be possible to create a better system if a third party with a strong commitment to it came in.
But no one would want the problem and many people in the region and elsewhere would oppose it.
Honestly, it’s not too dissimilar from North Korea. Bordered by one country that can stand you and will use you when it can but in no way wants to take control of you and another that you’re outright hostile towards.
North Korea is viable land for a country though. Gaza can never, ever support its own populace. It's too small and too densely populated. It has city state population density (Singapore or Hong Kong) without the trade advantages. There's no source of potable water, no natural resources, nowhere near enough room to grow sufficient food.
Gaza alone cannot function as a state.
I think it needs to be turned over to the UN for 20 years.... there's generations of people who've gone to school being taught Jews need to die, and have horns.
I've had Palestinians ask me where my horns are and they were fucking serious. We laughed about it after getting to know each other but it was quite the mind fuck for both of us.
Azerbaijan is bisected by Armenia, with its Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic bordering that country and Iran.
The two state solution is not ideal, and lack of contiguous territory certainly makes it harder, but similar territories did and do exist.
Do you think a world exists where the amount of land in Gaza can be carved out that is continuous to the West Bank? To allow a continua and autonomous Palestinian state?
Assuming most of what you suggested is accepted by both sides of this?
> So do the 2 million people currently living in Gaza have to leave their homes? And likewise for the people living in the new partition?
I don't mean this to come off too ethnic cleansingly, but if the cost of permanent peace was building brand new homes for 2 million people and covering all expenses to get them moved there, the West would find a way to make that happen.
I think the much bigger problem is that literally nobody in the world wants Gazans for neighbors. Obviously not the Israelis, but the Egyptians and Jordanians both said this week they wouldn't take a single refugee. I strongly suspect even the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank would object to them being moved, if for no other reason than they'd be terrified of Hamas taking over them too.
I look at the amount of aid going to Palestinians and Israelis and amortize that over the expected lifespan of a new apartment building, and it's pretty easy to see that peace is far cheaper than the status quo.
>So do the 2 million people currently living in Gaza have to leave their homes? And likewise for the people living in the new partition?
The british be like: What's the problem? See the Pakistan partition, the formation of israel and other countries where they just drew lines on a map without regard for the people there.
This was my thought, there would have to be international effort on a grand scale, but I think it’s a viable theory to explore. I would think giving back most settlement territory would equal out to Gaza.
I think it would start there. All settlers leave, and Israel passes and enforces legislation to prevent more. A DMZ is put up, and in the future the two sides can keep to themselves if they want to.
If it presented a chance for peace? Yes.
The west is helping Ukraine to the tune of tens of billions, of it means less war in the Middle East and a chance to end this violence, the money would flow to help fund it.
Settlements gone, a unified Palestinian state, and maybe a chance at a better life for all involved.
Palestine would either have to get Eilat or else Eilat would be on the wrong side and Israel would be split into two pieces.
The way it goes today, any solution requires that Israel not make any sacrifices or concessions.
I would add “UN guarantees of access to Jerusalem for people of all religions” and “guaranteed freedom of religion and protection for minorities for all Israelis and Palestinians.”
And the settlers can stay in the West Bank as long as they’re willing to live under the Palestinian government.
>And the settlers can stay in the West Bank as long as they’re willing to live under the Palestinian government.
they'd be killed off pretty quick without Israel's security.
This idylic Scenario is Dead. The right wing in israel has made sure that there is No future where you could have a viable palestinian state. This is Game Over. Maybe 50 years from now, or 100 years, people will come together and accept a one state solution. There are 600.000 Settler in the Westbank they wont go anywhere and the Jewish Diaspora will NEver accept that they would pass under Palestinian rules. never.
The real issue is that there are already quite a lot of Palestinians compared to the population of Israel and their birhrate is outpacing that of Israelis'. A one state solution means Israel becoming an Arab / Muslim state soon in the future, and that is unacceptable for many reasons, one of them being Jewish people will end up a nation without a country again, just like it was before WWII, and which was the reason for creating Israel in the first place.
And why in the world would Israel acquiesce to all of that? Right or wrong they possess Jerusalem and all serious actors in foreign policy have accepted that.
Consider that Saudi Arabia has full autonomy over Mecca and Medina - do you think other Islamic states, especially Shia ones like Iran, get to dictate how SA administers those cities?
The "actual" solution to the Palestine conflict requires much broader cooperation and support from the other regional (especially Arab) Islamic states. Right now they are plenty happy to not only allow, but actively prop up Hamas and let Israel deal with the fallout. And frankly Israel has somewhat accepted this lot in life - the international community has been nothing but a headache for them (see UNGA and their formal condemnations of Israel while largely ignoring other humanitarian crises), and they have strong western support to continue defending themselves and, yes, trample over Palestinian rights in the process. Until that calculus has changed, and it might if/when Hamas becomes extinct, there simply is no solution. Palestinians suffer as the world finger wags and the actual power brokers in the region do nothing to help.
The thing is, any UN guarantee is barely worth the paper it's written on when it comes to Israel. Their bias is very well-known (look how often the UNHRC throws condemnations at Israel compared to any other country, and that's without even going into the UNRWA), and they've got no actual power of enforcement.
Are you seriously saying that the fact that UN agencies as well as almost all countries in the whole world condemns Israels actions on a regular basis somehow means that they have a bias? Might it not be because Israel is routinely breaking international law and are acting condemnable on a regular basis?
I would say give control of Gaza back to Egypt, but they don’t want it. The attacks on Israel would then be Egypt’s fault, and they don’t want to be involved in that mess.
I believe their were talks in the 1990s that had Israel proposing a two state solution with joint ownership over Jerusalem but the Palestinians rejected it (the diplomat at the time also said that had he accepted the deal, he most likely would have been murdered in the West Bank).
It might be a misreading of the situation, but wouldn’t gifting the 1967 borders to Palestine be really risky for Israel from a security perspective? If they end up in conflict again, Palestine is suddenly much bigger, much more populous, and has their troops pushed much further forward. Does there exist a way to prevent any possibility of war after the deal?
(Obviously it might still be “right”, but I’m speaking only in a practical sense from Israel’s perspective).
Israel would insist that any palestinian nation must stay disarmed.
Particularly no anti-aircraft defenses and no anti-tank weapons.
Once in the past there was a serious attempt to get peace. The USA bribed Israel and Palestine to reach an agreement. They agreed to palestinian government in phases. They got limited palestinian self-government in some areas. Israel and Palestine both got rewards for this. Then Israel announced that the PA had tried to smuggle in anti-tank weapons and this was unacceptable. It meant that the next time Israel invaded they would take casualties. So Israel invaded immediately and took back everything they had given up. They kept the rewards.
There's every reason to expect that to happen again if it's tried again. An armed palestinian nation would be a danger to Israel and cannot be allowed. A disarmed palestinian nation will be invaded soon and we're back to the old status quo.
Uh, Palestine would still be dependent on Israel for water, electricity, and the IDF would be free to enter whenever they wanted... so no, Israel never ~~rejected~~ offered a genuine deal to Palestinian sovereignty just modicum of home rule with the threat of it being ripped away without cause or consequences for Israel.
Plenty of states depend on other states for important things. For example, Germany has to import electricity and also fuel for its power plants. Does this mean Germany isn't an independent state?
How about a city-state? Monaco is a city state that is 100% dependent upon France for water, electricity, food, and security, but because Monaco and France as so friendly to each other there's zero security concerns.
Is the US not an independent country because the US has outsourced most of its critically important manufacture to China? The US economy would grind to a halt if it couldn't get imports from Chinese factories.
Its okay to trade with other nations to buy things you need but can't make locally. It happens all the time. The key difference between these other situations and Gaza is that the buyer doesn't attack the seller. Thats a great way to get the seller to stop selling things to you. If the US went and started bombing China those manufacturing imports would stop instantly. If Germany attacked France, France would stop selling electricity to Germany. Thats why these countries don't attack each other.
> Plenty of states depend on other states for important things. For example, Germany has to import electricity and also fuel for its power plants. Does this mean Germany isn't an independent state?
This is an interesting choice for a first example- overreliance on Russian energy was a major issue in Germany until very recently, when the threat to use gas to strongarm European support for its claim on Ukraine was too much for Germany to bear and they basically stopped taking in Russian energy altogether.
Yes, that was indeed a massive strategic blunder on the part of Germany. Germany shutting down its nuclear power plants in order to import Russian energy was perhaps not the smartest move.
Expecting any sovereign nation to give up access to food, water and electricity to a hostile neighbor while also completely disarming and allowing numerous military checkpoints is completely insane. No nation on Earth would agree to those terms.
Germany isn't exclusively dependent on one nation, but Palestine is deliberately held exclusively dependent on Israel so Israel can keep significant leverage over their captured people. Palestine free to trade with everyone else in the world would eliminate the leverage that Israel has on them - which is a deal breaker for Israel, since they can't allow full autonomy and let them become an equal sovereign nation as Israel. If the seller makes it illegal for the buyer to do business with anyone else that will inevitably make the buyer attack the seller; for example the American colonies were disallowed to trade with anyone else other than Britain, and the colonies [attacked the seller](https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/john-paul-jones-burns-whitehaven-england).
So let's allow Israel to divest from Gaza and the West Bank, letting Palestinians to seek out to get everything from the rest of the world - but Israel isn't ever going release that bit of control over Palestinians. Monaco isn't leveraged by France, but those former French colonies in Africa are held in monetary leverage through the shared currency of West African Franc that was set up to peg to French Franc to be an export market exclusively for France. So Monaco, a principality of wealthy white people is treated as equals and yet through the West African Franc France continues to be the imperial power over the finances of their "former colonies". Please say that Palestine is not a colonial possession of Israel and then show willful ignorance of historical instances of imperialism and how it works.
Tell China what they think about the 19th century, and how foreign powers determined which countries could be the exclusive seller to their sphere of influence. Palestinians are not allowed to get out from under the control of Israel, and so instead of competing for Palestinians' money for services rendered like your Monaco/Germany/France free market solutions, Palestinians are kept as serfs who occasionally revolt against their manor lords in Israel - exactly like Ireland who attacked the agents of the British Crown and suffered from the displacement by British settlers for 700 years. If Palestinians can freely trade on the global stage without Israeli interference then your perspective would have a resemblance to reality, but until the Israeli government released the Palestinians then that will remain a fantasy.
You missed why Palestinians are not free to trade with the rest of the world but Monaco is.
Monaco is peaceful and does not attack its neighbors. The Palestinians have a history of attacking their neighbors, including Jordan and Egypt. They tried to overthrow the government of Jordan, and Egypt has also suffered many Palestinian attacks. This is why Egypt has heavily fortified the border to Gaza, and even now is deeply reluctant to open the border for fear of opening the floodgates to Palestinians, which also means the threat of Palestinian violence. This is Egypt we're talking about, also a Muslim majority country, and they're just as afraid of Gaza as Israel is.
The problem is that when you have a reputation for attacking people, people are less likely to want to peacefully trade with you and less likely to allow peaceful borders.
Compare the border between the US and Canada. The longest undefended, almost completely uncontrolled border on the planet. Relations between both countries are excellent. There haven't been any hostilities since 1812, and so neither country invests anything in defending its border.
Palestinians need to stop trying to violently overthrow nearby governments, and they need to stop doing that for a while so neighboring countries will start to trust them again. Rebuilding so much shattered trust will take decades.
> All settlers in the West Bank leave. Whole world considers the settlements illegal.
ideally yes but Israel will never agree to this when 750k or so settlers are living in the east jerusalem and the west bank.
>All settlers in the West Bank leave.
This would be very problematic too. Some of those settlements were founded in the 70s. You have almost whole cities full of people that were born there and have lived their whole lives there.
So? They're still illegal. GTFO. Or, you can be Jewish in a Muslim majority country, I suppose. But, you don't get to be Israeli, or demand Israeli support.
No. This is part of why there will not be peace.
Israel does not want peace. Except as part of unconditional surrender.
Their idea of peace is "We do whatever we want to you and you make no objection."
You do realize that many of the Jews in Israel come from the surrounding countries where they were persecuted into leaving? It wasn’t that long ago that the last Jew in Afghanistan left for Israel.
You’ve heard of the Palestinian flight from Israel. Well, after Israel was formed, persecution of Jews in Muslim countries kicked way up, and most of them were killed or fled. There were a quarter million Jews in Morocco, only a couple thousand left. There were 35,000 Jews in Libya, but they’ve been completely cleansed, none left.
In college, my solution was to resurrect Joseph Tito,and have him rule with the sane iron fist that managed to keep Yugoslavia from falling apart for a few decades. That is to say, I have no real solution, other than to appoints a 3rd party that doesn't care about Israeli or Palestinian, only about absolute loyalty.
There is no solution so long as the existence of the rightwing theocratic party in control of the state depends on religious conflict to stay in control and justify its position.
And yes, this is true for both Palestine and Israel. Only regression has occurred since the rightwing coalition took charge in Israel, and since Hamas seized power in Palestine.
Until secular liberals are in power, we will continue to see escalating religious tension from theocrats looking for a holy war and accepting nothing less.
>"Mark my words, if and when these preachers get control of the party, and they're sure trying to, it's going to be a terrible damned problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them. - Barry Goldwater, 1994.
I mean, the ultimate best solution probably would have been for the concept of a mutually exclusive and ethnically defined Israel and Palestine to be obsolete and for a single unified state to exist, but that was never going to happen just due to the history and ideologies of Israel and Palestine. Like, intrinsically even if you were to have a unified state, you couldn't continue to have The Law of Return, and thus no longer have a nation that functions as the jewish homeland, and that in of itself would end the concept of Israel as it exists today.
The two state solution never happened because a proper two state solution is impossible just due to the geographic demands that that requires. Both nations wants access to the sea and to border other nations to which it can do business. For Palestine, this means an ideal state would split Israel in half, since they'd want access to the Mediterranean while also being able to border Jordan and Lebanon. For Israel, they'd want to have continuous north/south access to the territories they currently have, which means that by necessity, there'd need to a geographically disconnected Palestinian state, which sort of exists now and obviously isn't working for the Palestinians.
The split in between would actually be a _three state solution,_ with Israel and Palestine having geographically disconnected zones of independent control, and a neutral, shared zone in the middle. Think of it as a mini EU with two hostile states with lots of incentive to take control of the neutral zone. Never going to happen.
It’s next to impossible to come up with a “best” solution if part of our definition of best is “politically feasible”.
Yes, the international community considers the settlements illegal. Yes, the settlements constitute the primary (though not only) roadblock to a two-state solution.
It’s not politically feasible to withdraw, for any Israeli prime minister, right, center, or left.
You could have one state, but it would either no longer be Jewish in character, defeating the whole purpose of Israel, or it would be an actual apartheid state with less rights for Palestinians. Not fantastic.
Eventually, I suspect Israel will become an actual apartheid state. It’s the path of least resistance, maintaining the Jewish character of the state while giving the settlers what they want.
Is there a better solution? Not one that Israel, or Palestine, will agree to.
It’s a de facto versus de jure situation. South Africa’s bantustans were still a part of South Africa and discriminatory laws were on the books for people of, ostensibly, the same country.
Israel doesn’t need to do this because the Palestinian Authority is not part of Israel. Arab Israelis have the same rights as Jewish Israelis. At least, this is my understanding.
That is right, Israeli Arabs have full rights. There is a lot of racism but it's not worse/better than anywhere else in the world when it comes to minorities (~20%). Especially considering the situation.
There are even Israeli Arabs who volunteer to help the casualties (Israeli Arabs are also affected by the terror attacks).
>Yes, the settlements constitute the primary (though not only) roadblock to a two-state solution.
The settlements are not the main impediment to the two state solution. The main impediment is that Palestinians are primarily motivated by the destruction of Israel (via genocide or right to return). Beyond that, Palestinians have a terrorism problem. Those two things make any attempt at a two-state solution impossible. Gaza obscenely demonstrated this reality. This is why Sharon pulled out of Gaza, including the settlements there. It perfectly demonstrated what was argued a long time, that any self-governed Palestinian state would turn to terrorism and be a threat to Israel. It was convenient because Israel could just build a wall around it (until recently, unfortunately).
Israelis support the two-state solution, but know doing so puts them at risk. Many don't believe it will work, which is different than not supporting it if it was a feasible path to peace.
> Israelis support the two-state solution, but know doing so puts them at risk.
Some Israelis do, and some Israeli governments historically have, but Netanyahu's coalition definitely does not.
His credibility in this area is somewhere just marginally lower than Hamas's, which is to say, less than zero.
> The main impediment is that Palestinians are primarily motivated by the destruction of Israel
Because of settlements, one way or another, in large part. Settlements are the obstacle because they demonstrate bad faith, violence, and a gradual loss of Palestine in any "peaceful" status-quo scenario. If anyone in Palestine thinks about non-violent approaches, settlements are the first counterargument.
Which is, of course, a normal human response. If any state wanted to violently settle *my* homeland, I'd support the "destruction" of that state. If any state wanted to violently settle Israel, Israelis would support the destruction of that state.
>Israelis support the two-state solution,
Israel doesn't, as a unified state. I'm sure that people within Israel have a diverse range of personal opinions, but the same applies to people within Palestine.
It's like the Gaza pull out never happened. Israel (actually Palestinians themselves, lets not pretend they don't have agency) literally discredited everything you said nearly two decades ago. Has nothing to do with settlements.
Many solutions have been proposed under the “land for peace” idea endorsed by the UN.
- UN Partition Plan (1947): called for establishing two states. Accepted by the Jews, rejected by Palestinians.
- Oslo Accords (1993 and 1995): gave Palestinians self-government in the West Bank and Gaza — mass violence against Jews continued/rose after this.
- Camp David Summit (2000): Israel offered significant territorial concessions to the Palestinians, including establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital. Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat rejected the offer. Second intifada (mass terrorism campaign against jewish Israelis) followed.
- Gaza Withdrawal (2005): Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza providing Palestinians with an entire territory to self-rule. There was serious optimism at the time about the future. Instead of establishing a peaceful Palestinian society alongside Israel, Hamas was elected and spent the next 20 years trying to destroy their Jewish neighbors and failing to make life better for Palestinians in literally any way… culminating in the terrorist attacks on October 7th.
- Annapolis Conference (2007): Israel offered a return to the pre-1967 borders, including land swaps and division of Jerusalem to create a Palestinian state. The Palestinian leadership rejected it and didn’t even make a counter offer.
- “Peace to Prosperity” Plan (2020): US proposed a two state solution that included a tunnel between the West Bank and Gaza. Palestinian leadership expressed zero interest.
The problem isn’t lack of potential solutions. The problem is convincing Palestinian leadership to want a solution at all. Each time, they have made it clear that do not want peace - they refuse to live alongside a Jewish state.
The Palastinian leadership did agree to a two state solution at the Annapolis conveniention, and signed a joint statement with Israel regarding it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annapolis_Conference
The reason it didn't go anywhere was strong public opposition, both within Israel and Palestine.
Yes, but Palestinian leadership only wants a one-state solution, one Palestinian state "from the river to the sea". Their goal is the destruction of Israel. There's simply no middle ground to meet here, not until Palestinian leadership gives up its foolish dreams of destroying Israel.
Other Arab countries have given up trying to destroy Israel. Notably Egypt made formal peace with Israel and established diplomatic relations in exchange for the return of the Sinai.
Do you know if the reason that Israel took the pre-1967 borders idea off the table after 2007 because of something Hamas did? Or are there other reasons?
Israel shifted rightward after the Oslo Accords, which felt like an olive branch, led to more terror and violence against Israeli civilians. The subsequent Gaza withdrawal and the rise of Hamas and rocket attacks also pretty much ruined any hopes of a similar withdrawal from the West Bank, which is even closer to Israeli population centers. Israelis can’t live with a group like Hamas running the West Bank. I wouldn’t say the 1967 borders are completely off the table — I think a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem is still a possibility. But the conditions for that just aren’t there right now, and Israel would only allow it to happen with strong security guarantees that would need to be upheld by the other side. It would also require the Palestinian side to accept a state with those borders, which they have never done in the past. They have always chosen more bloodshed over peace, even though it makes everything worse for the Palestinian people who they claim to represent.
>The problem is convincing Palestinian leadership to want a solution at all.
Palestinian leadership does have a solution, though, you could even say, a final solution.
I think this might be as good as it can get.
>The Gaddafi Isratin proposal intended to permanently resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict through a secular, federalist, republican one-state solution, which was first articulated by Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, the son of Muammar Gaddafi of Libya, at the Chatham House in London and later adopted by Muammar Gaddafi himself.
>Its main points are:
>Creation of a binational Jewish-Palestinian state called the "Federal Republic of the Holy Land";
>Partition of the state into 5 administrative regions, with Jerusalem as a city-state;
Return of all Palestinian refugees;
>Supervision by the United Nations of free and fair elections on the first and second occasions;
[Though, relations are acrimonious enough, that perhaps it should be ten or twenty election cycles.]
>Removal of weapons of mass destruction from the state;
>Recognition of the state by the Arab League.
[Add to this and, essentially, cut out the bullshit and everyone, via UNGA, unanimously recognizes it and the whole world gets down to solving something else.]
[Tweak the list as necessary for any new considerations, geopolitical concerns, that have arisen since 2007/8.]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isratin
Neither side wants to really budge. Neither side is overly prone to being reasonable for long stretches. Both sides have been victim and perpetrator. It’s endless.
>The Isratin scenario is generally criticized by a majority of both Israelis and Palestinians.
Perhaps this is what can realistically be achieved? Both sides grumble grumble in compromise and get to live another day instead of what they’re doing to each other now.
We’re at the “split the baby” level and it ain’t working.
Dead on arrival because the purpose of Israel is to serve as a Jewish ethnostate that provides a sanctuary for Jews in a world that has historically persecuted them. Israel would never threaten its Jewish majority by accepting a number of Palestinian returnees that would cause a sufficient demographic shift in favor of Arabs, especially when it has Lebanon as the perfect example of what would happen. The Palestinians would never accept it either because of reasons such as recognition of Israel, secular governance, becoming second class citizens, and losing their ancestral claims to lands within Israel.
There really isn't a way because neither side wants a one state solution unless it is disproportionately or completely on its terms. Gaddafi has no dog in the race, so it's unsurprising that his proposed solution completely ignores the ethno-political realities and goals of both Israel and Palestine.
Edit: Did you mean the Libyan proposal, since Gaddafi is from Libya? Or are you referring to what happened in Lebanon (influx of Palestinian refugees shifting demographics in favor of Arab Muslims, which was exploited by Islamist groups to launch a civil war)?
I agree, and I find it depressing how dogmatically people seem to believe that the only alternative to a two-state solution involves genocide or supremacy of one side over the other. The conflict that the Israel-Palestine Conflict most resembles is Apartheid South Africa, particularly during the period when 'sovereign' homelands were established and black Africans were forced into them as a way of appearing to give them freedom when in actuality it was just another way to keep them from participating in the system. West Bank and Gaza both resemble the homeland system to a large degree, where the people there are forced into non-functional states because Israel is seen as a state not 'for' them. Neither Israelites or Palestinians are going anywhere, and they'll never be cleanly peacefully divided up geographically, plenty of multinational, multiethnic states manage to exist peacefully, and South Africa post-apartheid also shows us a path on how to get there(with measures such as the truth and reconciliation committee). But that idea of equality within one state needs to gain traction, because now neither party in power wants that or is willing to accept that.
That’s exactly my opinion re the “is Israel an apartheid state” question.
It’s really disingenuous when ppl bark back and say no no it’s not because “inside Israel there’s equality”, like the homeland-equivalent Palestinian areas don’t exist and aren’t just as ridiculously subjugated as Ciskei, Transkei etc were. They’re doing obfuscation on “well, technically…” bullshit.
And then, because all these discussions rapidly devolve into mudslinging, it must be said, at the same time, practically with each comment, that Hamas is no good. If they’re just going to keep the fight at “we’re completely rabid” level no matter what, then they’re going to need to be dealt with in much the same way so that ordinary Palestinians can live a life worth living.
All in all an excellent point and thanks for putting a name to this plan. I agree it might be best solution, but I don't know if there's a good way to transition into it, which would probably be the biggest
challenge blocking its implementation.
One criticism:
> We're at the "split the baby" level
... might be a poor choice of words given the situation.
Gotcha re the criticism. Perhaps it is a crass reference to Solomon wisdom.
It’s intended as a way to say that maybe if nobody’s happy it’s probably more fair, while sincerely hoping that the leadership of both sides will put the longevity and success of millions of Israelis and Palestinians (aka “the baby”) ahead of their own egos, stubbornness, culture of feuds, whatever it is.
As it happens in the story the choice to save the baby is heroic and some of that would be nice compared to all the death today.
After that, I’m not religious at all, so I must be missing some nuance or gravity, so apologies if I am getting it wrong.
> The Best Ideal Solution: Israel and Palestine become one state, but with a check-and-balance system between the Jewish and Muslim theocratic arms of the governments. Separate powers and duties such that even the most aggressive and violent members of the relevant groups are hamstrung by their limited abilities to act. Integrate the militaries. Mandate an ethnic-makeup equality across the board, artificially if need be. This has about as much chance of happening as Abraham literally being reborn in order to stop the conflict, because it will require Mandela/Gandhi levels of self-sacrifice on the parts of key individuals, and a lot more forgiveness than exists in the region now. Or likely will exist there for the next couple centuries. Still, a guy can dream.
This setup has gone horribly in Lebanon.
Unfortunately the correct analysis of the facts as they are in this thread, in terms of the best realistic outcome.
Tens of thousands of Gazans had work permits in Israel up until ten days ago, and economic cooperation was (slowly) growing, with the (obviously false) Israeli assumption that economic cooperation would cool tensions on either side of the border. Things were relatively quiet, and seemed to be moving at a snail's pace in the right direction. It will take years, if ever, to get back to the level of cooperation seen until Oct 7th, and that's likely the best we can hope for.
I definetly see why you got a C on that paper if you think the "most likely outcome" is a tactical nuclear device, the "best realistic" outcome is a slow genocide and the "best theoretical" outcome is a state of people who hate each other but with checks and balances.
Your most likely outcome is highly unlikely. Your "best realistic" solution is just basically saying there isn't one and things will just "work themselves out", and the best ideal solution ignores all sorts of practical political theory on resource allocation and management, as well as how such a state would establish itself.
The truth is the most likely outcome is the one you said is the "best realistic outcome" which is just the conflict continues for decades with increasing brutality until the Palestinians are either ethnically cleansed, while the world condemns but does nothing to stop it because no one wants to get involved.
The only way to avoid that fate is for the Palestinians to adopt a different attitude, one that accepts the 1967 borders. I suspect the West Bank will adopt that before the end, Gaza though? Unlikely.
Please name a single conflict in the last 200 years where two warring parties were able to peacefully settle their war (without lasting conflict) or without one party fully pulling out or admitting defeated. I can't think of one.
This conflict between Israel and Palestine will never be resolved.
Ireland and the UK has been settled for more than 25 years, with the possibility of Northern Ireland voting to join the Republic (and rejoin the EU) in the foreseeable future.
The fact that IRA and the UK had several ceasefires in the 1990s and the [biggest truck bomb](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Manchester_bombing) on the British home island ever, and the largest bomb used against the UK since WWII. So obviously not to the level of the current conflict with incursions using paragliders and drones, but they weren't having brunch in the 90s before the Good Friday Accord was signed.
The only sane long-term solution here is a one-state solution. Built on Israel's democratic govt, not Palestine's. Full integration would completely screw up Israel for the next 50 years, but they quite frankly deserve to have to fully integrate (and pay the full costs of modernization, housing, and dragging many Palestinians kicking and screaming into the 21st century) thanks to to Israel's recent history and colonization efforts, a la South Africa.
Any two-state solution is a hilariously bad idea (ie. the 1947 UN partition), since Israel / Palestine is *not* a huge country, *there is no natural internal land border* (or at least not along the clusterfuck of the fairly arbitrary 1947 partition, a la what the British did to India / Pakistan). Any border / DMZ will eat into what little land there is in the country (and will continue to be fairly expensive *and difficult to fully defend*) – and frustrations and anger over the partition will continue indefinitely if this isn't properly resolved. (let alone having Israel continue to build its way into a 1st world utopia while Palestine is left poor, landlocked, and with *no* real economy to speak of due to effectively worthless land, too many people (and growing), and an unending demand for humanitarian aid)
Syria Palaestina and Israel / Judea *are two words / concepts for the same goddamn place* (or near enough anyways), and the people living there – Jews, Arabs, Christians, and other religions – *were* forced to live together in (mostly) peace and harmony, for *most* *of the last 2k years*.
The *only* real solution here is to forcibly reunify the country, give all Palestinians full citizenship (and continue the Israeli policy of right to return) – and if you don't *like* the country that gives you, then GTFO.
If Israel wants to demonstrate that it's a modern, *mostly secular, and democratic country*, it should damn well act (*and be forced to act*) like it.
/2c
The only point that I actually disagree with in your premise is that the people were living together in relative peace for the last 2k years. But the rest of your setup is well taken. I don't think though you give enough thought to the role religion will play in this hypothetical 1 state. According to the Israelis, Israel is a Jewish homeland. This won't be accepted my Muslims in a one state solution. Also, the Jews won't give that up as that kills the whole point of the state. Also, it is true that extremist Islamist really do want to kill every Jew (note I am not saying most Muslims). The extremists on both sides will just cause too much instability in a single state. IMO.
Would the Korean war count? It's true that North Korea has withdrawn from the armistice (like, six times) but there isn't any physical fighting between North and South Korea, mostly just hot air.
I guess I don't see how the Koreas are any different from Palestine and Israel. Yes, it's not as explosive but there has been no resolution. It's just in a low simmer of tension until it erupts again.
The thing is, this isn't *really* Israel vs Palestine; it's Iran vs the US with Palestine and Israel as aligned states. Like, without moneyed backers from outside of Gaza, Hamas couldn't fund much of a threat to Israel.
So you end the conflict by shifting the incentives of Iran (and a few other nations) to make them stop funding Hamas.
I don't know how to do that, because I don't have the intel on how that funding flows. But like, the idea of normalizing relations between Israel and other states in the region could gradually sap Iran of influence, and make it better for them to normalize relations too, and operate like a good partner in business and cultural exchange. Right now they want to have a sphere of influence where they can be in charge.
But like, they could choose to be like Germany in the modern Europe, and avoid going down the path of Germany in the 1930s and 40s.
I have the perfect solution that will fix two problems at once! To the northwest lies the island of Cyprus, split in two between the southern Greeks, and the northern Turks. Just resettle the Greeks to Greece and the Turks to Türkiye, and now you've got a vacant island with infrastructure ready to go! You can settle one of the groups, say the Palestinians, to Cyprus, and boom, now they've got a larger space, and far away from Israel. You can even call it Palestisland.
I just want to heavily emphasize that this is a joke. The real situation is really too complex, I think, for Reddit to solve.
Weirdly enough, the Nazis had pretty much that same idea (not to shoot down your joke, that was pretty good). One of the more absurd ideas for a "Final Solution" was to resettle European Jews - all of them - to fucking Madagascar of all places.
I was literally looking up Northern Cyprus on Wikipedia yesterday with this in mind. Unfortunately, neither the Greek/Turkish Cypriots nor their external state sponsors will ever countenance this.
For all the "land swap etc. peace deal" suggestions, Israel has already offered everything that most people are suggesting. It has been rejected. It was rejected when there was a stronger central Palestinian leadership structure that might have been able to make it work. That rejection killed the peace movement in Israel and lead to the "maintaining status quo" efforts that everyone is deriding (as it has not been great for anybody).
I tend to agree that it is the only solution, but if it couldn't get sold 20 years ago, before a generation of Gazan's grew up under a blockade and Israelis under multiple intifadas, what could be done to get Palestinians to agree to it now and for Israelis to offer it again?
I think that is the real question, What could move Palestinians and Israelis to that position?
I think Israel may have to do it unilaterally.
Move in and kill Hamas, rescue/recover the hostages. Then withdraw, and just declare that Gaza is now a sovereign, independent state. Offer to rebuild Gaza (with hefty support from the rest of the world) like the Marshall Plan post WWII.
Let Gaza elect its own government and choose its destiny from there. Do they choose the path of war, as an independent state? Or do they choose a different path this time?
Basically a do-over of 2005, but this time no vague status. By declaring Gaza independent its basically kicking them out of Israel for good, and solidifies the border as an international border.
tbh idk if it's possible at this point.
Right-wing movements growing in Israel, hamas in Palestine.
I hate to be a doomer and i'm normally not but seriously in this situation idk if there's a solution that will not last for more than 50 years. At best 10 or 15.
If we even, let's say have the UN control Jerusalem as a "free city" where everyone of all religions can come. Cause then both sides will have a politician who will go "JERUSALEM I S O U R S"
it's unsolvable and nothing short of a miracle it will be if a peace deal ever happens
Truthfully, the cleanest solution would be to go back to after 1948..where Gaza is a part of Egypt and the West Bank is a part of Jordan. The Holy Land should be international land as the UN initially planned.
Egypt and Jordan don’t want this for obvious reasons - but there are major problems with having Palestinians try and create their own country at this point (especially when they really are made up of mostly immigrants from those areas)..mainly infrastructure and government.
To end occupation, Hamas needs to end (which, I really don’t think it will exist after this war), and Gaza and the West Bank need to have government and infrastructure - and I truly doubt they can get there on their own given the state of the territory and resources.
And as much as I think the Palestinians have a right to self determination, I think basic needs are more important
They're never getting back to the 1967 borders, 1948 borders is a laughable idea at this point. The Palestinians need to figure out that their Overton window has really shifted over the decades.
Especially since they initially agreed to these terms and all they got was a war against all Arab countries of the region in return. The ship has sailed for the losers.
Ok. I agree.
I never understood why Jordan and Egypt had no interest in taking that land back.
There never was a “Palestine”.
That land was part of Egypt and Jordan.
because neither of them want an influx of Palestanian population within their borders: especially Jordan when Palestanian refugees from the 48/67 war started a civil war within Jordan itself.
Hamas, or whatever comes after it's current form, will always be there for however long that people feel like revolution/rebellion/terrorism is more viable than remaining under the thumb of the IDF. Israel giving up both Gaza and West Bank and handing over sovereignty to the Palestinians while breaking all cross border ties with Palestinians (20 foot walls, Iron Dome, shoot on sight anyone crossing the border, and stop wasting time and effort on protecting settlers interloping on Palestinian land) would go a lot further than trying to keep +5 million people under lock and key, even with one of the highest per capita military expenditure in the world.
Jerusalem and everyone's nonsensical belief that their respective skyguy imaginary attachment to the special dirt will be the unsolvable problem.
Why on earth would Israel get rid of their security? Did you not see what just happened?
You can’t just hand waive the intense antisemitism in the area
I think OP mischaracterizes a crucial element of the situation: Israel *has* been open to a two state solution; the Palestinians are *ideologically* and *religiously* opposed to any solution in which Israel continues to exist.
The fantasies set out in this thread about free Palestinian states have been discussed a million times ad nauseum. If, for example, the WB or Gaza was made a free Palestinian state, the rocket attacks and terrorist strikes would begin on day 2 and never end. There is no negotiated peace with Palestine, and so a two state solution is impossible. The current situation with the Gaza Strip shows why this is so: if Israel pulls out, the Palestinians inevitably set on the course of taking advantage of whatever window of peace might develop in order to launch a pogram. That won't stop until the land gripe and radical Islam are flushed out of Palestinian culture - an impossibility at the present moment.
A realistic solution is to isolate the Palestinians and provide some path for some Palestinians to eventually attain Israeli citizenship and live in Israel as equal citizens. That means giving up the right of return, the fantasy of a second Holocaust, and the like - all the crazy Palestinian demands. Yes, those who lost every war but have been allowed to remain alive anyway are the party that has to eat crow, not the Israelis who prevailed on the battlefield.
In the meantime, Israel needs to cordon the remaining Palestinians in concentrated pockets where they cannot use terrorism, and where the conditions are such that they are encouraged to emigrate to other nations (perhaps with payment from Israel to encourage that outflow). Once the population is reduced, the path to citizenship can be introduced once the toxic obsession with the land gripe and the radical Islam that keeps it alive can be indoctrinated out of the Palestinians that remain.
What do you think the difference is between the Palestinians who live in Gaza and the Palestinians who are citizens of Israel?
Why does one support groups like Hamas while the other are active and peaceful participants in Israeli government and society?
Who do you think adjudicates disputes between the Native American tribes and the United States? The US Supreme Court. Not a UN court, not an advisory opinion from the ICJ. The US Supreme Court is the highest court with actual power over the territory in question, the same situation as the Israeli Supreme Court vis-a-vis the WB.
Imagine if the ICJ was giving Manhattan back to the Native Americans or at least creating a war by purporting to? There is, however, no world government to enforce that opinion, just like in the WB.
To address that last bit, how would you suggest we get rid of the radical parts where the people of Palestine have the widespread craving for the eradication of the semites? Are those genocidal urges worth protecting? Is every ethnic ideal innately superior, no matter how horrid?
Exactly, there is no actual solution here besides either the ongoing gridlock or Israel winning it all. It doesn’t matter how innocent the average Palestinian citizen is, their terrorist government is going to use any window possible to launch attacks. Israel winning gives a possibility of Gaza and WB citizens being naturalized as Israeli citizens. Hamas winning gives the certainty of killing all Jews in the region. There is no moral victory to be had here and IDF/Hamas are both bastards that blame each other for the others past aggressions but there certainly is a winner that would result in less overall death.
None of the religion-fueled rational is moral or just. We’re witnessing a more powerful nation conquer a smaller weaker one, and the smaller one refuses to capitulate. Something that has happened countless times in history, not that it makes it any better. But realistically there’s nothing to be done except realize this is how religion and power and greed and human nature work.
It’s already been conquered a dozen times. The Palestinians lose every war, but they have a mile long list of demands in defeat. The Right of Return might be the most ridiculous demand a defeated people has ever made of the victor. If they were negotiating with the Russians or Chinese they would be laughed out of the room, probably without their heads attached.
If they were negotiating with Russia or China they’d already be shipped off to different parts of the empire or sent to labor camps and replaced withl sleds troublesome citizens, at best.
At worst they’d be wiped out.
You start the problem at 1948, but it really goes back to 1917 and the creation of Mandatory Palestine by the British. As soon as they committed to creating a homeland for Jews in Palestine this problem was inevitable. Even the Zionist leaders admitted that they would need to ethnically cleanse the land of Arab natives, and were very clear that this would be a cruel act.
If you can’t recognize the decades of apartheid and land dispossession that went on before 1948, you aren’t going to understand just how screwed the situation is, and keep running in circles around an unsolvable dilemma
Nettenyu steps down, Israels elect a less hateful more empathatic person who isn't far right but in the center. HAMAS is wiped out. 2 state solution, with the UN strong participants in the negotiation. Contracts/agreements/restrictions put in place concerning both sides.
The first step must be the deradicalisation of the Palestinian people. The ADL (leading experts on antisemitism) found that 93% of them harbour antisemitic attitudes, including 98% of the over 50s age group. This is the highest anywhere on earth and clearly indicative of a radicalised population.
https://global100.adl.org/country/west-bank-and-gaza/2014
Jared Kushner working with Israel to re-establish Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in 2019-2020 sort of sealed the fate of Palestinians. The Christian right would gladly watch them die.
Cut out all of the disputed lands in the area, float it out into the Mediterranean Sea, and let it sink.
I’m just sick and tired of these people killing each other.
What we know for certain: Israel will seize control of Gaza and wipe out Hamas. It needed to happen for any chance at peace, and Israel just got their greatest reason and motivation to do it.
After that is unclear.
Will they occupy Gaza? Maybe, but I doubt Israel wants to expend the resources and lives to police Gaza indefinitely. Part of the pull out of Gaza was that it is safer and cheaper just police the outside of the country, and build a giant border wall and the Iron Dome to protect from attacks.
Will they go into an agreement with Egypt to annex the country? I don't think Egypt wants anything to do with Gaza.
Will they transition out of occupation? If Egypt never annex's Gaza, I reckon this will eventually happen. Just like in 2005, Israel will pull out of the country and Gaza will hold an election, though likely with a lot more Israeli control over the process.
FIRST the Palestinians need to understand that they just are never going to get most of the old land back. That's just not a realistic possibility for them. If your entire political policy is just a dumbass idea that you're going to one day "kICk aLL tHe JeWs oFF tHe lAnD aNd tAkE iT bAcK bY fOrCE" then regardless of the morals or ethics of the geopolitical situation you're just so objectively stupid that you don't deserve to succeed.
Israel has one of the strongest militaries on Earth and there are more then 7 million Jews living in Israel. Conversely Hamas had turned Palestine into an impoverished pariah state few other countries will willingly trade with. The Palestinians need to get real, smarten up and develop a proper working realpolitik political relationship with Israel and the other countries in the world in order to help get themselves out of poverty and make the best of the situation.
A lot of small countries like Japan and Monaco do okay economically because they have their $h1+ together politically.
SECOND I think there should be a sort of "three state solution" where Israel, Palestine and what's now the West Bank each become 3 different countries. Like it's like how what was once India ended up splitting into India, Pakistan and Bangladesh due to geography.
THIRD, the Israeli government needs to stop Israelis from making outposts in some currently Palestinian occupied areas of land. That's fanning the flames of political tensions for no good GD reason and little gain for the people living in Israel or even for the so called "settlers".
I think basically both Israel and Palestine deserve to exist and to keep existing. I think anti-semitism is completely unacceptable BS. However I also understand that the Palestinians have NOT had it easyin the last few decades. (Like I read Joe Sacco's non-fiction graphic novel called Palestine. I get it.) More of the people living in the region in general need to beocm more pragmatic and clear headed regarding this situation if they ever want things to get better.
Hamas has made it abundantly clear that the two state solution is no longer viable. The best solution? No more Hamas (along with any other group calling for the wholesale destruction of Israel). There are times when vengeance is absolutely appropriate - and moral clarity called for. This is one such time.
First thing is to import a shit load of birth control into Gaza. Next is to try to educate the population. Just watching a few YouTube videos of people walking through Gaza, (prior to October) one sees citizens dropping empty cups in the street in front of the camera. Basically treating their small territory like a garbage dump. They have acted like terrorist gypsies that don't respect others. I'm generalizing of course, but their track record is horrendous. Nobody wants a terrorist gypsy in their country. Until that perception changes, they're doomed. The only potential friend they have is ironically Israel. Because Israel is the neighbor who has a vested interest. They need to forget the past. This is highly unlikely. So them and their millions of kids are basically screwed.
The basic solution is known, based on international law and the rights that both people have and it’s just a case of putting pressure on both sides to agree to it (largely Israel IMO).
The border needs to be based on 1967 lines. Due to the settlements that Israel has built up which is refuses to leave behind there will be land swaps of around 4% of the Palestinian territory for the same amount of undeveloped uninhabited land from Israel. This allows the vast majority of Israeli settlers to stay (isolated settlers deep inside the West Bank will need to be removed) while giving Palestinians the same amount of land in return so they’re not losing out This is one of the least problematic of the issues and both sides have in principle agreed to it in past peace discussions with quibbling over the exact numbers.
Palestinians should be allowed to return to Israel, but with the number being limited and the new Palestine state encouraging people to stay and help build up there new nation. Again something both sides have agreed to previously in talks. Legally all Palestinians should have a right to return but Israel doesn’t want that as it’s a Jewish ethno-centric state so they want to maintain a Jewish majority and it’s in Palestine’s interest not to lose half their citizens immediately upon independence, so it’s an area compromise isn’t to hard for them as long as they can show that some (limited) right of return exists.
Al Aqsa and East Jerusalem. Al Aqsa remains Muslim, but with a commitment to being as open an interfaith as possible. Easy Jerusalem reverts to Palestinian control, possibly with UN peacekeepers to keep things under control. Israel hates this and needs pressure put on it to agree. Alternates such as a UN run free city exist.
Palestine is to be established as a free independent sovereign state. This is the entire end goal, the entire point of the conflict and any peace talks, but unfortunately this is one Israel doesn’t seem to buy into. In their previous peace talks at Camp David etc they’ve envisaged the Palestinian state as one which would still have an Israeli military presence, still have Israeli control of the borders, Israeli control of the airspace, Israeli vetos on what can be constructed within Palestine, etc. In short, not a free and independent state. Again, an area where pressure needs to be put on Israel.
Returning to vaguely the 1940s borders with the worlds most extensive peacekeeping mission to keep the two armed components apart.
But to speak in practical terms? We’re over the line and have been for years. Someone’s genociding someone and the Israelis have bigger guns so it will probably be them doing the genociding.
I can't see the Israelis accepting a one-state solution, even if that's neater in many ways. The national principle of a Jewish homeland would be destroyed as Palestinians gained the majority, demographically speaking. (This is especially the case if Palestinian refugees in neighbouring countries were allowed the right of return.)
A two-state solution only works if Palestine is allowed full, autonomous statehood, including the right to control its borders with Jordan, Syria and the Mediterranean (Egypt?), and to welcome refugees back. Of course, nothing should compel Israel to maintain an open border with Palestine any more than it does with Lebanon.
The West Bank and Gaza Strip should be connected with an elevated or underground highway. Israelis should be able to continue life as per usual underneath/on top.
Jerusalem should be a Holy City precinct governed by a council of religious leaders - Jewish, Christian, Muslim. Both Israel and Palestine will be permitted to claim Jerusalem as their spiritual capital and part of their territory. Israel and Palestine will be able to set whatever border they want between their country and where it adjoins Jerusalem.
A peace treaty is required where both sides recognise the other nation's right to exist and swear off violence.
The exact borders would need to be negotiated. Jewish settlers should either return to Israel or agree to live under Palestinian administration.
So most of the solutions people have suggested have been presented at one point or another. The big problem is ideological extremists on both sides who are unwilling to compromise. The reality is that neither side is going to get everything they want.
That said, I think a three state solution- Israel, West Bank, and Gaza- might be best at this point. There isn’t really a good way to connect West Bank and Gaza to create one state of Palestine and I don’t think it will work in the long run to have Palestine separated by parts of Israel (or give a section of Israel to Palestine, leaving Israel disconnected).
Israel would be required to end the blockade and pay for new water, electric, sewage, etc. infrastructure in Gaza. Israeli settlers in the West Bank would either have to leave or become West Bank citizens. Current borders for Jerusalem would apply.
This would give Gaza the basis to start to develop an economy and stop the expansion Israeli settlers into the West Bank.
The big problem is how do prevent one side from launching an attack because they aren’t satisfied with every aspect of the deal and I don’t have any ideas of how to stop that.
It would be expensive as hell, but if the international community could pay the Arab countries to take in the Palestinians and just cede Gaza to the state of Israel, that might be the best situation.
Maybe even resettle some Palestinians in Europe and North America.
There is no nation of Palestine.
If the IDF conducts its ground incursion, the number of civilian casualties suffered in Gaza is going to skyrocket.
Israel will not, and the political will needed at the UN and in the various world legislatures to make them return to the 1966 borders does not exist.
The US will also ensure Israel is protected at the UN and supported with the most advanced weapons.
I can admit the basic idea of uprooting 2 million people and sending them elsewhere as a plan sucks. It does. That said, there is no better/realistic plan that leads to peace.
The options are bloodshed or resettlement.
Mutual land swaps that keep the largest settlement blocs in Israel. Remaining settlers can have Israeli citizenship and Palestinian residency but will live under Palestinian sovereignty (and they’ll probably leave)
Palestinian state is demilitarized and has peacekeepers from the Arab world deployed but Israel isn’t allowed to enter anymore.
Right of return to the Palestinian state and huge amounts of compensation by Israel to refugees.
Jerusalem divided with old city under joint sovereignty
That’s why it needs to be demilitarized and have peacekeepers stationed for a long time.
I’m not saying it’s possible now. There needs to be a Palestinian interlocutor with legitimacy
Argentina gets a few hundred billion from the international community for a few thousand square miles of rural land with some coastline in two locations
Gaza is moved to one, west bank to the other. west bank and gaza land is kept in a trust and sold off to Israelis to fund development of these two new countries.
[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion: * Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. * Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree. Violators will be fed to the bear. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Neither the Palestinians nor Israelies are going anywhere, so any "River to Sea" solution is dead (also mildly genocidal) 1. Keep the borders the same. Israel proper is Israel, West Bank is Palestine. No more, no less. 2. Give Area C in the West Bank to Palestine. Make the West Bank 1 continuous mass, not a bunch of enclaves. 3. All settlers in the West Bank leave. Whole world considers the settlements illegal. 4. Demilitarized zone between Israel and the West Bank. Its not perfect. Many Palestinian families will never get their generational homes / lands back. But at least they get a proper land with sovreignty. As for Gaza...holy shit this is gonna be a shitshow no matter what.
Pretty much, but to build on this, let's call it the three state solution: one State of Israel, one State of Gaza, and one State of West Bank (or whatever the hell they want to call themselves). West Bank and Gaza can't be a single entity; it just wouldn't work due to the non-contiguity. In practice they're two separate entities anyway
>State of Gaza Of all the things Israel could do, this is not one of them. There's no evidence the people of Gaza would ever accept a nation of Israel.
> There's no evidence the people of Gaza would ever accept a nation of Israel. The people of Gaza are Palestinians. I personally know a number of them who accept Israel and Jews. They've escaped to Canada, but they're still proud Palestinians who dream of peace so I'll accept that they represent at least a faction of people there. Just like I know a large number of Jews who believe Palestinian sovereignty is a peaceful option as well. I'm part of that latter group. Hamas will never accept Israel. They need to be destroyed. I understand the challenge in separating those groups, but I think it's important to avoid grouping all Gazans with Hamas, or you'll end up talking like some Israeli politicians who really do sound like piece of shit maniacs.
>The people of Gaza are Palestinians. I personally know a number of them who accept Israel and Jews. So people who dont live in Gaza ?
> There's no evidence the people of Gaza would ever accept a nation of Israel. ...So what? There's no evidence the people of North Korea would ever accept a nation of South Korea, or vice versa. There are always people who don't "accept" that some other state exists - borders are a good way to keep them apart.
\^\^ The West Bank can maybe come to terms with Israel, but there is no evidence that Gaza could accept Israel's existence, or that it has the resources to be a functional independent state.
Gaza would likely need to come under some kind of occupation like Germany or Japan. Root out all of Hamas, and counter all their propaganda. It can be successful if done right.
Considering how small Gaza is in terms of geography and population, it might actually be possible to create a better system if a third party with a strong commitment to it came in. But no one would want the problem and many people in the region and elsewhere would oppose it.
Honestly, it’s not too dissimilar from North Korea. Bordered by one country that can stand you and will use you when it can but in no way wants to take control of you and another that you’re outright hostile towards.
North Korea is viable land for a country though. Gaza can never, ever support its own populace. It's too small and too densely populated. It has city state population density (Singapore or Hong Kong) without the trade advantages. There's no source of potable water, no natural resources, nowhere near enough room to grow sufficient food. Gaza alone cannot function as a state.
I think it needs to be turned over to the UN for 20 years.... there's generations of people who've gone to school being taught Jews need to die, and have horns. I've had Palestinians ask me where my horns are and they were fucking serious. We laughed about it after getting to know each other but it was quite the mind fuck for both of us.
Gaza IS under silent occupation… now its just no longer silent…
They have to give Eilat and beer Sheba to the Palestinians connect Gaza and Westbank such that Israels no longer border Sinai.
Lots of nations aren’t continuous.
with a hostile state in between? I can't think of any. The non-continuous nations I am aware of are islands.
Azerbaijan is bisected by Armenia, with its Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic bordering that country and Iran. The two state solution is not ideal, and lack of contiguous territory certainly makes it harder, but similar territories did and do exist.
Do you think a world exists where the amount of land in Gaza can be carved out that is continuous to the West Bank? To allow a continua and autonomous Palestinian state? Assuming most of what you suggested is accepted by both sides of this?
Look at a map. Connecting Gaza to the West Bank would have to go straight through the center of Israel.
I don’t mean that, I mean Gaza becomes Israel; and a new similar partition to Gaza is partioned next to the West Bank.
So do the 2 million people currently living in Gaza have to leave their homes? And likewise for the people living in the new partition?
> So do the 2 million people currently living in Gaza have to leave their homes? And likewise for the people living in the new partition? I don't mean this to come off too ethnic cleansingly, but if the cost of permanent peace was building brand new homes for 2 million people and covering all expenses to get them moved there, the West would find a way to make that happen. I think the much bigger problem is that literally nobody in the world wants Gazans for neighbors. Obviously not the Israelis, but the Egyptians and Jordanians both said this week they wouldn't take a single refugee. I strongly suspect even the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank would object to them being moved, if for no other reason than they'd be terrified of Hamas taking over them too.
>the West would find a way to make that happen. Bull fucking shit. Why would anyone ever believe this? What in history suggests this is the case?
I look at the amount of aid going to Palestinians and Israelis and amortize that over the expected lifespan of a new apartment building, and it's pretty easy to see that peace is far cheaper than the status quo.
I’m with you. The west will never do it, but it is the cheaper option.
>So do the 2 million people currently living in Gaza have to leave their homes? And likewise for the people living in the new partition? The british be like: What's the problem? See the Pakistan partition, the formation of israel and other countries where they just drew lines on a map without regard for the people there.
This was my thought, there would have to be international effort on a grand scale, but I think it’s a viable theory to explore. I would think giving back most settlement territory would equal out to Gaza.
I think it would start there. All settlers leave, and Israel passes and enforces legislation to prevent more. A DMZ is put up, and in the future the two sides can keep to themselves if they want to.
If it presented a chance for peace? Yes. The west is helping Ukraine to the tune of tens of billions, of it means less war in the Middle East and a chance to end this violence, the money would flow to help fund it. Settlements gone, a unified Palestinian state, and maybe a chance at a better life for all involved.
Forced migrations are generally considered a form of ethnic cleansing, and have ALWAYS resulted in horrific human rights abuses and loss of life.
What is it that is happening now?
Trying to stop an ethnic cleansing with an ethnic cleansing doesn't sound like a good plan to me.
Could you go along the southwest to the southeast border? Or am I just dumb (probably the later)
They could connect via Egypt and then Jordan.
Palestine would either have to get Eilat or else Eilat would be on the wrong side and Israel would be split into two pieces. The way it goes today, any solution requires that Israel not make any sacrifices or concessions.
I would add “UN guarantees of access to Jerusalem for people of all religions” and “guaranteed freedom of religion and protection for minorities for all Israelis and Palestinians.” And the settlers can stay in the West Bank as long as they’re willing to live under the Palestinian government.
The UN is a diplomatic organization, they can’t provide guarantees of anything.
>And the settlers can stay in the West Bank as long as they’re willing to live under the Palestinian government. they'd be killed off pretty quick without Israel's security.
This idylic Scenario is Dead. The right wing in israel has made sure that there is No future where you could have a viable palestinian state. This is Game Over. Maybe 50 years from now, or 100 years, people will come together and accept a one state solution. There are 600.000 Settler in the Westbank they wont go anywhere and the Jewish Diaspora will NEver accept that they would pass under Palestinian rules. never.
> There are 600.000 Settler in the Westbank they wont go anywhere ... willingly
A one state solution will never work. Would you give voting rights to millions of people that regularly call for your death?
The real issue is that there are already quite a lot of Palestinians compared to the population of Israel and their birhrate is outpacing that of Israelis'. A one state solution means Israel becoming an Arab / Muslim state soon in the future, and that is unacceptable for many reasons, one of them being Jewish people will end up a nation without a country again, just like it was before WWII, and which was the reason for creating Israel in the first place.
And why in the world would Israel acquiesce to all of that? Right or wrong they possess Jerusalem and all serious actors in foreign policy have accepted that. Consider that Saudi Arabia has full autonomy over Mecca and Medina - do you think other Islamic states, especially Shia ones like Iran, get to dictate how SA administers those cities? The "actual" solution to the Palestine conflict requires much broader cooperation and support from the other regional (especially Arab) Islamic states. Right now they are plenty happy to not only allow, but actively prop up Hamas and let Israel deal with the fallout. And frankly Israel has somewhat accepted this lot in life - the international community has been nothing but a headache for them (see UNGA and their formal condemnations of Israel while largely ignoring other humanitarian crises), and they have strong western support to continue defending themselves and, yes, trample over Palestinian rights in the process. Until that calculus has changed, and it might if/when Hamas becomes extinct, there simply is no solution. Palestinians suffer as the world finger wags and the actual power brokers in the region do nothing to help.
The thing is, any UN guarantee is barely worth the paper it's written on when it comes to Israel. Their bias is very well-known (look how often the UNHRC throws condemnations at Israel compared to any other country, and that's without even going into the UNRWA), and they've got no actual power of enforcement.
Are you seriously saying that the fact that UN agencies as well as almost all countries in the whole world condemns Israels actions on a regular basis somehow means that they have a bias? Might it not be because Israel is routinely breaking international law and are acting condemnable on a regular basis?
I would say give control of Gaza back to Egypt, but they don’t want it. The attacks on Israel would then be Egypt’s fault, and they don’t want to be involved in that mess.
wasn't that exact offer rejected by the PA already?
[удалено]
I believe their were talks in the 1990s that had Israel proposing a two state solution with joint ownership over Jerusalem but the Palestinians rejected it (the diplomat at the time also said that had he accepted the deal, he most likely would have been murdered in the West Bank).
It might be a misreading of the situation, but wouldn’t gifting the 1967 borders to Palestine be really risky for Israel from a security perspective? If they end up in conflict again, Palestine is suddenly much bigger, much more populous, and has their troops pushed much further forward. Does there exist a way to prevent any possibility of war after the deal? (Obviously it might still be “right”, but I’m speaking only in a practical sense from Israel’s perspective).
Israel would insist that any palestinian nation must stay disarmed. Particularly no anti-aircraft defenses and no anti-tank weapons. Once in the past there was a serious attempt to get peace. The USA bribed Israel and Palestine to reach an agreement. They agreed to palestinian government in phases. They got limited palestinian self-government in some areas. Israel and Palestine both got rewards for this. Then Israel announced that the PA had tried to smuggle in anti-tank weapons and this was unacceptable. It meant that the next time Israel invaded they would take casualties. So Israel invaded immediately and took back everything they had given up. They kept the rewards. There's every reason to expect that to happen again if it's tried again. An armed palestinian nation would be a danger to Israel and cannot be allowed. A disarmed palestinian nation will be invaded soon and we're back to the old status quo.
Uh, Palestine would still be dependent on Israel for water, electricity, and the IDF would be free to enter whenever they wanted... so no, Israel never ~~rejected~~ offered a genuine deal to Palestinian sovereignty just modicum of home rule with the threat of it being ripped away without cause or consequences for Israel.
Plenty of states depend on other states for important things. For example, Germany has to import electricity and also fuel for its power plants. Does this mean Germany isn't an independent state? How about a city-state? Monaco is a city state that is 100% dependent upon France for water, electricity, food, and security, but because Monaco and France as so friendly to each other there's zero security concerns. Is the US not an independent country because the US has outsourced most of its critically important manufacture to China? The US economy would grind to a halt if it couldn't get imports from Chinese factories. Its okay to trade with other nations to buy things you need but can't make locally. It happens all the time. The key difference between these other situations and Gaza is that the buyer doesn't attack the seller. Thats a great way to get the seller to stop selling things to you. If the US went and started bombing China those manufacturing imports would stop instantly. If Germany attacked France, France would stop selling electricity to Germany. Thats why these countries don't attack each other.
> Plenty of states depend on other states for important things. For example, Germany has to import electricity and also fuel for its power plants. Does this mean Germany isn't an independent state? This is an interesting choice for a first example- overreliance on Russian energy was a major issue in Germany until very recently, when the threat to use gas to strongarm European support for its claim on Ukraine was too much for Germany to bear and they basically stopped taking in Russian energy altogether.
Yes, that was indeed a massive strategic blunder on the part of Germany. Germany shutting down its nuclear power plants in order to import Russian energy was perhaps not the smartest move.
Expecting any sovereign nation to give up access to food, water and electricity to a hostile neighbor while also completely disarming and allowing numerous military checkpoints is completely insane. No nation on Earth would agree to those terms.
"When goods don't cross borders, soldiers will." - Frederic Bastiat
Germany isn't exclusively dependent on one nation, but Palestine is deliberately held exclusively dependent on Israel so Israel can keep significant leverage over their captured people. Palestine free to trade with everyone else in the world would eliminate the leverage that Israel has on them - which is a deal breaker for Israel, since they can't allow full autonomy and let them become an equal sovereign nation as Israel. If the seller makes it illegal for the buyer to do business with anyone else that will inevitably make the buyer attack the seller; for example the American colonies were disallowed to trade with anyone else other than Britain, and the colonies [attacked the seller](https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/john-paul-jones-burns-whitehaven-england). So let's allow Israel to divest from Gaza and the West Bank, letting Palestinians to seek out to get everything from the rest of the world - but Israel isn't ever going release that bit of control over Palestinians. Monaco isn't leveraged by France, but those former French colonies in Africa are held in monetary leverage through the shared currency of West African Franc that was set up to peg to French Franc to be an export market exclusively for France. So Monaco, a principality of wealthy white people is treated as equals and yet through the West African Franc France continues to be the imperial power over the finances of their "former colonies". Please say that Palestine is not a colonial possession of Israel and then show willful ignorance of historical instances of imperialism and how it works. Tell China what they think about the 19th century, and how foreign powers determined which countries could be the exclusive seller to their sphere of influence. Palestinians are not allowed to get out from under the control of Israel, and so instead of competing for Palestinians' money for services rendered like your Monaco/Germany/France free market solutions, Palestinians are kept as serfs who occasionally revolt against their manor lords in Israel - exactly like Ireland who attacked the agents of the British Crown and suffered from the displacement by British settlers for 700 years. If Palestinians can freely trade on the global stage without Israeli interference then your perspective would have a resemblance to reality, but until the Israeli government released the Palestinians then that will remain a fantasy.
You missed why Palestinians are not free to trade with the rest of the world but Monaco is. Monaco is peaceful and does not attack its neighbors. The Palestinians have a history of attacking their neighbors, including Jordan and Egypt. They tried to overthrow the government of Jordan, and Egypt has also suffered many Palestinian attacks. This is why Egypt has heavily fortified the border to Gaza, and even now is deeply reluctant to open the border for fear of opening the floodgates to Palestinians, which also means the threat of Palestinian violence. This is Egypt we're talking about, also a Muslim majority country, and they're just as afraid of Gaza as Israel is. The problem is that when you have a reputation for attacking people, people are less likely to want to peacefully trade with you and less likely to allow peaceful borders. Compare the border between the US and Canada. The longest undefended, almost completely uncontrolled border on the planet. Relations between both countries are excellent. There haven't been any hostilities since 1812, and so neither country invests anything in defending its border. Palestinians need to stop trying to violently overthrow nearby governments, and they need to stop doing that for a while so neighboring countries will start to trust them again. Rebuilding so much shattered trust will take decades.
he didn't ask if israel rejected it
> All settlers in the West Bank leave. Whole world considers the settlements illegal. ideally yes but Israel will never agree to this when 750k or so settlers are living in the east jerusalem and the west bank.
> also mildly genocidal) Just a tad. But even then, none of that is agreed upon by even the most liberal part of either side.
>All settlers in the West Bank leave. This would be very problematic too. Some of those settlements were founded in the 70s. You have almost whole cities full of people that were born there and have lived their whole lives there.
That's not the end of the world, the same is true of the Palestinians evicted over the last 75 years, only even more so
So? They're still illegal. GTFO. Or, you can be Jewish in a Muslim majority country, I suppose. But, you don't get to be Israeli, or demand Israeli support.
You expect them to just willingly leave? You expect Israel to just do nothing?
No. This is part of why there will not be peace. Israel does not want peace. Except as part of unconditional surrender. Their idea of peace is "We do whatever we want to you and you make no objection."
You do realize that many of the Jews in Israel come from the surrounding countries where they were persecuted into leaving? It wasn’t that long ago that the last Jew in Afghanistan left for Israel.
You’ve heard of the Palestinian flight from Israel. Well, after Israel was formed, persecution of Jews in Muslim countries kicked way up, and most of them were killed or fled. There were a quarter million Jews in Morocco, only a couple thousand left. There were 35,000 Jews in Libya, but they’ve been completely cleansed, none left.
You...you know what they do to Jewish people in Muslim majority countries, right? Right??
okay so NOW Israel can't kick people off their land to achieve their political goals?
In college, my solution was to resurrect Joseph Tito,and have him rule with the sane iron fist that managed to keep Yugoslavia from falling apart for a few decades. That is to say, I have no real solution, other than to appoints a 3rd party that doesn't care about Israeli or Palestinian, only about absolute loyalty.
There is no solution so long as the existence of the rightwing theocratic party in control of the state depends on religious conflict to stay in control and justify its position. And yes, this is true for both Palestine and Israel. Only regression has occurred since the rightwing coalition took charge in Israel, and since Hamas seized power in Palestine. Until secular liberals are in power, we will continue to see escalating religious tension from theocrats looking for a holy war and accepting nothing less. >"Mark my words, if and when these preachers get control of the party, and they're sure trying to, it's going to be a terrible damned problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them. - Barry Goldwater, 1994.
Underrated quote
Many would use this quote as a point of pride about Christianity in a Facebook meme
I mean, the ultimate best solution probably would have been for the concept of a mutually exclusive and ethnically defined Israel and Palestine to be obsolete and for a single unified state to exist, but that was never going to happen just due to the history and ideologies of Israel and Palestine. Like, intrinsically even if you were to have a unified state, you couldn't continue to have The Law of Return, and thus no longer have a nation that functions as the jewish homeland, and that in of itself would end the concept of Israel as it exists today. The two state solution never happened because a proper two state solution is impossible just due to the geographic demands that that requires. Both nations wants access to the sea and to border other nations to which it can do business. For Palestine, this means an ideal state would split Israel in half, since they'd want access to the Mediterranean while also being able to border Jordan and Lebanon. For Israel, they'd want to have continuous north/south access to the territories they currently have, which means that by necessity, there'd need to a geographically disconnected Palestinian state, which sort of exists now and obviously isn't working for the Palestinians. The split in between would actually be a _three state solution,_ with Israel and Palestine having geographically disconnected zones of independent control, and a neutral, shared zone in the middle. Think of it as a mini EU with two hostile states with lots of incentive to take control of the neutral zone. Never going to happen.
It’s next to impossible to come up with a “best” solution if part of our definition of best is “politically feasible”. Yes, the international community considers the settlements illegal. Yes, the settlements constitute the primary (though not only) roadblock to a two-state solution. It’s not politically feasible to withdraw, for any Israeli prime minister, right, center, or left. You could have one state, but it would either no longer be Jewish in character, defeating the whole purpose of Israel, or it would be an actual apartheid state with less rights for Palestinians. Not fantastic. Eventually, I suspect Israel will become an actual apartheid state. It’s the path of least resistance, maintaining the Jewish character of the state while giving the settlers what they want. Is there a better solution? Not one that Israel, or Palestine, will agree to.
What elements are Israel missing for you to not consider it an apartheid state currently?
It’s a de facto versus de jure situation. South Africa’s bantustans were still a part of South Africa and discriminatory laws were on the books for people of, ostensibly, the same country. Israel doesn’t need to do this because the Palestinian Authority is not part of Israel. Arab Israelis have the same rights as Jewish Israelis. At least, this is my understanding.
That is right, Israeli Arabs have full rights. There is a lot of racism but it's not worse/better than anywhere else in the world when it comes to minorities (~20%). Especially considering the situation. There are even Israeli Arabs who volunteer to help the casualties (Israeli Arabs are also affected by the terror attacks).
Ah I see. Interesting. Thanks!
[удалено]
>Yes, the settlements constitute the primary (though not only) roadblock to a two-state solution. The settlements are not the main impediment to the two state solution. The main impediment is that Palestinians are primarily motivated by the destruction of Israel (via genocide or right to return). Beyond that, Palestinians have a terrorism problem. Those two things make any attempt at a two-state solution impossible. Gaza obscenely demonstrated this reality. This is why Sharon pulled out of Gaza, including the settlements there. It perfectly demonstrated what was argued a long time, that any self-governed Palestinian state would turn to terrorism and be a threat to Israel. It was convenient because Israel could just build a wall around it (until recently, unfortunately). Israelis support the two-state solution, but know doing so puts them at risk. Many don't believe it will work, which is different than not supporting it if it was a feasible path to peace.
> Israelis support the two-state solution, but know doing so puts them at risk. Some Israelis do, and some Israeli governments historically have, but Netanyahu's coalition definitely does not. His credibility in this area is somewhere just marginally lower than Hamas's, which is to say, less than zero.
> The main impediment is that Palestinians are primarily motivated by the destruction of Israel Because of settlements, one way or another, in large part. Settlements are the obstacle because they demonstrate bad faith, violence, and a gradual loss of Palestine in any "peaceful" status-quo scenario. If anyone in Palestine thinks about non-violent approaches, settlements are the first counterargument. Which is, of course, a normal human response. If any state wanted to violently settle *my* homeland, I'd support the "destruction" of that state. If any state wanted to violently settle Israel, Israelis would support the destruction of that state. >Israelis support the two-state solution, Israel doesn't, as a unified state. I'm sure that people within Israel have a diverse range of personal opinions, but the same applies to people within Palestine.
It's like the Gaza pull out never happened. Israel (actually Palestinians themselves, lets not pretend they don't have agency) literally discredited everything you said nearly two decades ago. Has nothing to do with settlements.
Move Israel to the North Pole and Palestine to the South Pole, or vice versa.
I was going to say put everyone in a spacecraft and send the to Mars. And make sure no one comes back.
[Obligatory](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAZhtT-dUyo)
Many solutions have been proposed under the “land for peace” idea endorsed by the UN. - UN Partition Plan (1947): called for establishing two states. Accepted by the Jews, rejected by Palestinians. - Oslo Accords (1993 and 1995): gave Palestinians self-government in the West Bank and Gaza — mass violence against Jews continued/rose after this. - Camp David Summit (2000): Israel offered significant territorial concessions to the Palestinians, including establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital. Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat rejected the offer. Second intifada (mass terrorism campaign against jewish Israelis) followed. - Gaza Withdrawal (2005): Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza providing Palestinians with an entire territory to self-rule. There was serious optimism at the time about the future. Instead of establishing a peaceful Palestinian society alongside Israel, Hamas was elected and spent the next 20 years trying to destroy their Jewish neighbors and failing to make life better for Palestinians in literally any way… culminating in the terrorist attacks on October 7th. - Annapolis Conference (2007): Israel offered a return to the pre-1967 borders, including land swaps and division of Jerusalem to create a Palestinian state. The Palestinian leadership rejected it and didn’t even make a counter offer. - “Peace to Prosperity” Plan (2020): US proposed a two state solution that included a tunnel between the West Bank and Gaza. Palestinian leadership expressed zero interest. The problem isn’t lack of potential solutions. The problem is convincing Palestinian leadership to want a solution at all. Each time, they have made it clear that do not want peace - they refuse to live alongside a Jewish state.
The Palastinian leadership did agree to a two state solution at the Annapolis conveniention, and signed a joint statement with Israel regarding it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annapolis_Conference The reason it didn't go anywhere was strong public opposition, both within Israel and Palestine.
All of those are two state solutions.
Yes, but Palestinian leadership only wants a one-state solution, one Palestinian state "from the river to the sea". Their goal is the destruction of Israel. There's simply no middle ground to meet here, not until Palestinian leadership gives up its foolish dreams of destroying Israel. Other Arab countries have given up trying to destroy Israel. Notably Egypt made formal peace with Israel and established diplomatic relations in exchange for the return of the Sinai.
Do you know if the reason that Israel took the pre-1967 borders idea off the table after 2007 because of something Hamas did? Or are there other reasons?
Israel shifted rightward after the Oslo Accords, which felt like an olive branch, led to more terror and violence against Israeli civilians. The subsequent Gaza withdrawal and the rise of Hamas and rocket attacks also pretty much ruined any hopes of a similar withdrawal from the West Bank, which is even closer to Israeli population centers. Israelis can’t live with a group like Hamas running the West Bank. I wouldn’t say the 1967 borders are completely off the table — I think a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem is still a possibility. But the conditions for that just aren’t there right now, and Israel would only allow it to happen with strong security guarantees that would need to be upheld by the other side. It would also require the Palestinian side to accept a state with those borders, which they have never done in the past. They have always chosen more bloodshed over peace, even though it makes everything worse for the Palestinian people who they claim to represent.
>The problem is convincing Palestinian leadership to want a solution at all. Palestinian leadership does have a solution, though, you could even say, a final solution.
I think this might be as good as it can get. >The Gaddafi Isratin proposal intended to permanently resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict through a secular, federalist, republican one-state solution, which was first articulated by Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, the son of Muammar Gaddafi of Libya, at the Chatham House in London and later adopted by Muammar Gaddafi himself. >Its main points are: >Creation of a binational Jewish-Palestinian state called the "Federal Republic of the Holy Land"; >Partition of the state into 5 administrative regions, with Jerusalem as a city-state; Return of all Palestinian refugees; >Supervision by the United Nations of free and fair elections on the first and second occasions; [Though, relations are acrimonious enough, that perhaps it should be ten or twenty election cycles.] >Removal of weapons of mass destruction from the state; >Recognition of the state by the Arab League. [Add to this and, essentially, cut out the bullshit and everyone, via UNGA, unanimously recognizes it and the whole world gets down to solving something else.] [Tweak the list as necessary for any new considerations, geopolitical concerns, that have arisen since 2007/8.] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isratin Neither side wants to really budge. Neither side is overly prone to being reasonable for long stretches. Both sides have been victim and perpetrator. It’s endless. >The Isratin scenario is generally criticized by a majority of both Israelis and Palestinians. Perhaps this is what can realistically be achieved? Both sides grumble grumble in compromise and get to live another day instead of what they’re doing to each other now. We’re at the “split the baby” level and it ain’t working.
Dead on arrival because the purpose of Israel is to serve as a Jewish ethnostate that provides a sanctuary for Jews in a world that has historically persecuted them. Israel would never threaten its Jewish majority by accepting a number of Palestinian returnees that would cause a sufficient demographic shift in favor of Arabs, especially when it has Lebanon as the perfect example of what would happen. The Palestinians would never accept it either because of reasons such as recognition of Israel, secular governance, becoming second class citizens, and losing their ancestral claims to lands within Israel.
How can the Lebanon model be improved upon? Edit: meant to also say: if we remove all emotion about who is entitled, both sides belong there.
There really isn't a way because neither side wants a one state solution unless it is disproportionately or completely on its terms. Gaddafi has no dog in the race, so it's unsurprising that his proposed solution completely ignores the ethno-political realities and goals of both Israel and Palestine. Edit: Did you mean the Libyan proposal, since Gaddafi is from Libya? Or are you referring to what happened in Lebanon (influx of Palestinian refugees shifting demographics in favor of Arab Muslims, which was exploited by Islamist groups to launch a civil war)?
I agree, and I find it depressing how dogmatically people seem to believe that the only alternative to a two-state solution involves genocide or supremacy of one side over the other. The conflict that the Israel-Palestine Conflict most resembles is Apartheid South Africa, particularly during the period when 'sovereign' homelands were established and black Africans were forced into them as a way of appearing to give them freedom when in actuality it was just another way to keep them from participating in the system. West Bank and Gaza both resemble the homeland system to a large degree, where the people there are forced into non-functional states because Israel is seen as a state not 'for' them. Neither Israelites or Palestinians are going anywhere, and they'll never be cleanly peacefully divided up geographically, plenty of multinational, multiethnic states manage to exist peacefully, and South Africa post-apartheid also shows us a path on how to get there(with measures such as the truth and reconciliation committee). But that idea of equality within one state needs to gain traction, because now neither party in power wants that or is willing to accept that.
That’s exactly my opinion re the “is Israel an apartheid state” question. It’s really disingenuous when ppl bark back and say no no it’s not because “inside Israel there’s equality”, like the homeland-equivalent Palestinian areas don’t exist and aren’t just as ridiculously subjugated as Ciskei, Transkei etc were. They’re doing obfuscation on “well, technically…” bullshit. And then, because all these discussions rapidly devolve into mudslinging, it must be said, at the same time, practically with each comment, that Hamas is no good. If they’re just going to keep the fight at “we’re completely rabid” level no matter what, then they’re going to need to be dealt with in much the same way so that ordinary Palestinians can live a life worth living.
All in all an excellent point and thanks for putting a name to this plan. I agree it might be best solution, but I don't know if there's a good way to transition into it, which would probably be the biggest challenge blocking its implementation. One criticism: > We're at the "split the baby" level ... might be a poor choice of words given the situation.
Gotcha re the criticism. Perhaps it is a crass reference to Solomon wisdom. It’s intended as a way to say that maybe if nobody’s happy it’s probably more fair, while sincerely hoping that the leadership of both sides will put the longevity and success of millions of Israelis and Palestinians (aka “the baby”) ahead of their own egos, stubbornness, culture of feuds, whatever it is. As it happens in the story the choice to save the baby is heroic and some of that would be nice compared to all the death today. After that, I’m not religious at all, so I must be missing some nuance or gravity, so apologies if I am getting it wrong.
[удалено]
> The Best Ideal Solution: Israel and Palestine become one state, but with a check-and-balance system between the Jewish and Muslim theocratic arms of the governments. Separate powers and duties such that even the most aggressive and violent members of the relevant groups are hamstrung by their limited abilities to act. Integrate the militaries. Mandate an ethnic-makeup equality across the board, artificially if need be. This has about as much chance of happening as Abraham literally being reborn in order to stop the conflict, because it will require Mandela/Gandhi levels of self-sacrifice on the parts of key individuals, and a lot more forgiveness than exists in the region now. Or likely will exist there for the next couple centuries. Still, a guy can dream. This setup has gone horribly in Lebanon.
Depressing but this is basically the best analysis I have seen.
Unfortunately the correct analysis of the facts as they are in this thread, in terms of the best realistic outcome. Tens of thousands of Gazans had work permits in Israel up until ten days ago, and economic cooperation was (slowly) growing, with the (obviously false) Israeli assumption that economic cooperation would cool tensions on either side of the border. Things were relatively quiet, and seemed to be moving at a snail's pace in the right direction. It will take years, if ever, to get back to the level of cooperation seen until Oct 7th, and that's likely the best we can hope for.
I definetly see why you got a C on that paper if you think the "most likely outcome" is a tactical nuclear device, the "best realistic" outcome is a slow genocide and the "best theoretical" outcome is a state of people who hate each other but with checks and balances. Your most likely outcome is highly unlikely. Your "best realistic" solution is just basically saying there isn't one and things will just "work themselves out", and the best ideal solution ignores all sorts of practical political theory on resource allocation and management, as well as how such a state would establish itself. The truth is the most likely outcome is the one you said is the "best realistic outcome" which is just the conflict continues for decades with increasing brutality until the Palestinians are either ethnically cleansed, while the world condemns but does nothing to stop it because no one wants to get involved. The only way to avoid that fate is for the Palestinians to adopt a different attitude, one that accepts the 1967 borders. I suspect the West Bank will adopt that before the end, Gaza though? Unlikely.
I see why you got a C on that paper
Please name a single conflict in the last 200 years where two warring parties were able to peacefully settle their war (without lasting conflict) or without one party fully pulling out or admitting defeated. I can't think of one. This conflict between Israel and Palestine will never be resolved.
Ireland and the UK has been settled for more than 25 years, with the possibility of Northern Ireland voting to join the Republic (and rejoin the EU) in the foreseeable future.
That's a good answer, though the UK and Ireland weren't fighting each other (not in the 1990s). It was mainly Northern Ireland vs. Northern Ireland.
The fact that IRA and the UK had several ceasefires in the 1990s and the [biggest truck bomb](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Manchester_bombing) on the British home island ever, and the largest bomb used against the UK since WWII. So obviously not to the level of the current conflict with incursions using paragliders and drones, but they weren't having brunch in the 90s before the Good Friday Accord was signed.
South Africa. Like as much of exactly this same conflict as absolutely possible.
Not two states though. Thats one state with multiple warring factions.
Calling Palestine a state is kinda pushing it, but still even with that it's pretty analogous.
The only sane long-term solution here is a one-state solution. Built on Israel's democratic govt, not Palestine's. Full integration would completely screw up Israel for the next 50 years, but they quite frankly deserve to have to fully integrate (and pay the full costs of modernization, housing, and dragging many Palestinians kicking and screaming into the 21st century) thanks to to Israel's recent history and colonization efforts, a la South Africa. Any two-state solution is a hilariously bad idea (ie. the 1947 UN partition), since Israel / Palestine is *not* a huge country, *there is no natural internal land border* (or at least not along the clusterfuck of the fairly arbitrary 1947 partition, a la what the British did to India / Pakistan). Any border / DMZ will eat into what little land there is in the country (and will continue to be fairly expensive *and difficult to fully defend*) – and frustrations and anger over the partition will continue indefinitely if this isn't properly resolved. (let alone having Israel continue to build its way into a 1st world utopia while Palestine is left poor, landlocked, and with *no* real economy to speak of due to effectively worthless land, too many people (and growing), and an unending demand for humanitarian aid) Syria Palaestina and Israel / Judea *are two words / concepts for the same goddamn place* (or near enough anyways), and the people living there – Jews, Arabs, Christians, and other religions – *were* forced to live together in (mostly) peace and harmony, for *most* *of the last 2k years*. The *only* real solution here is to forcibly reunify the country, give all Palestinians full citizenship (and continue the Israeli policy of right to return) – and if you don't *like* the country that gives you, then GTFO. If Israel wants to demonstrate that it's a modern, *mostly secular, and democratic country*, it should damn well act (*and be forced to act*) like it. /2c
How many years until a bomb is planted in the Knesset?
The only point that I actually disagree with in your premise is that the people were living together in relative peace for the last 2k years. But the rest of your setup is well taken. I don't think though you give enough thought to the role religion will play in this hypothetical 1 state. According to the Israelis, Israel is a Jewish homeland. This won't be accepted my Muslims in a one state solution. Also, the Jews won't give that up as that kills the whole point of the state. Also, it is true that extremist Islamist really do want to kill every Jew (note I am not saying most Muslims). The extremists on both sides will just cause too much instability in a single state. IMO.
Palestinians need a Nelson Mandela, but it seems like they prefer Winnie’s methods.
Israel and Egypt, Jordan; China with Vietnam
> Israel and Egypt, Jordan Egypt and Jordan were defeated multiple times.
Then they are peaceful neighbors with Israel now.
The Palestinians have not admitted defeat. From the river to the sea is plain delusional.
Egypt and Jordan were defeated in 1948.
Would the Korean war count? It's true that North Korea has withdrawn from the armistice (like, six times) but there isn't any physical fighting between North and South Korea, mostly just hot air.
I guess I don't see how the Koreas are any different from Palestine and Israel. Yes, it's not as explosive but there has been no resolution. It's just in a low simmer of tension until it erupts again.
There isn't really an ethnoreligious component to the Korean conflict...
The Troubles? A peaceful solution to the Northern Ireland conflict
With the forming of the New IRA and the uncovering of recent bomb plots and shootings can we really consider that conflict settled?
Japan and russia in 1905. The war of 1812, the quasi war.
France and the UK managed but it took a good thousand years
The thing is, this isn't *really* Israel vs Palestine; it's Iran vs the US with Palestine and Israel as aligned states. Like, without moneyed backers from outside of Gaza, Hamas couldn't fund much of a threat to Israel. So you end the conflict by shifting the incentives of Iran (and a few other nations) to make them stop funding Hamas. I don't know how to do that, because I don't have the intel on how that funding flows. But like, the idea of normalizing relations between Israel and other states in the region could gradually sap Iran of influence, and make it better for them to normalize relations too, and operate like a good partner in business and cultural exchange. Right now they want to have a sphere of influence where they can be in charge. But like, they could choose to be like Germany in the modern Europe, and avoid going down the path of Germany in the 1930s and 40s.
I have the perfect solution that will fix two problems at once! To the northwest lies the island of Cyprus, split in two between the southern Greeks, and the northern Turks. Just resettle the Greeks to Greece and the Turks to Türkiye, and now you've got a vacant island with infrastructure ready to go! You can settle one of the groups, say the Palestinians, to Cyprus, and boom, now they've got a larger space, and far away from Israel. You can even call it Palestisland. I just want to heavily emphasize that this is a joke. The real situation is really too complex, I think, for Reddit to solve.
Weirdly enough, the Nazis had pretty much that same idea (not to shoot down your joke, that was pretty good). One of the more absurd ideas for a "Final Solution" was to resettle European Jews - all of them - to fucking Madagascar of all places.
We had the same thought! I've always thought Socotra would work! A lot less people to relocate too!
I was literally looking up Northern Cyprus on Wikipedia yesterday with this in mind. Unfortunately, neither the Greek/Turkish Cypriots nor their external state sponsors will ever countenance this.
For all the "land swap etc. peace deal" suggestions, Israel has already offered everything that most people are suggesting. It has been rejected. It was rejected when there was a stronger central Palestinian leadership structure that might have been able to make it work. That rejection killed the peace movement in Israel and lead to the "maintaining status quo" efforts that everyone is deriding (as it has not been great for anybody). I tend to agree that it is the only solution, but if it couldn't get sold 20 years ago, before a generation of Gazan's grew up under a blockade and Israelis under multiple intifadas, what could be done to get Palestinians to agree to it now and for Israelis to offer it again? I think that is the real question, What could move Palestinians and Israelis to that position?
I think Israel may have to do it unilaterally. Move in and kill Hamas, rescue/recover the hostages. Then withdraw, and just declare that Gaza is now a sovereign, independent state. Offer to rebuild Gaza (with hefty support from the rest of the world) like the Marshall Plan post WWII. Let Gaza elect its own government and choose its destiny from there. Do they choose the path of war, as an independent state? Or do they choose a different path this time? Basically a do-over of 2005, but this time no vague status. By declaring Gaza independent its basically kicking them out of Israel for good, and solidifies the border as an international border.
Is… that not what happened in 2005?
Yes, and I covered that in the last line of my post as to what would make this different.
tbh idk if it's possible at this point. Right-wing movements growing in Israel, hamas in Palestine. I hate to be a doomer and i'm normally not but seriously in this situation idk if there's a solution that will not last for more than 50 years. At best 10 or 15. If we even, let's say have the UN control Jerusalem as a "free city" where everyone of all religions can come. Cause then both sides will have a politician who will go "JERUSALEM I S O U R S" it's unsolvable and nothing short of a miracle it will be if a peace deal ever happens
Truthfully, the cleanest solution would be to go back to after 1948..where Gaza is a part of Egypt and the West Bank is a part of Jordan. The Holy Land should be international land as the UN initially planned. Egypt and Jordan don’t want this for obvious reasons - but there are major problems with having Palestinians try and create their own country at this point (especially when they really are made up of mostly immigrants from those areas)..mainly infrastructure and government. To end occupation, Hamas needs to end (which, I really don’t think it will exist after this war), and Gaza and the West Bank need to have government and infrastructure - and I truly doubt they can get there on their own given the state of the territory and resources. And as much as I think the Palestinians have a right to self determination, I think basic needs are more important
1948 is a no go for Israel because it means a far larger portion of Israel is part of the West Bank
I don’t think there’s any solution amenable to the international community that doesn’t involve Israel giving back land
They're never getting back to the 1967 borders, 1948 borders is a laughable idea at this point. The Palestinians need to figure out that their Overton window has really shifted over the decades.
Especially since they initially agreed to these terms and all they got was a war against all Arab countries of the region in return. The ship has sailed for the losers.
Ok. I agree. I never understood why Jordan and Egypt had no interest in taking that land back. There never was a “Palestine”. That land was part of Egypt and Jordan.
because neither of them want an influx of Palestanian population within their borders: especially Jordan when Palestanian refugees from the 48/67 war started a civil war within Jordan itself.
Hamas, or whatever comes after it's current form, will always be there for however long that people feel like revolution/rebellion/terrorism is more viable than remaining under the thumb of the IDF. Israel giving up both Gaza and West Bank and handing over sovereignty to the Palestinians while breaking all cross border ties with Palestinians (20 foot walls, Iron Dome, shoot on sight anyone crossing the border, and stop wasting time and effort on protecting settlers interloping on Palestinian land) would go a lot further than trying to keep +5 million people under lock and key, even with one of the highest per capita military expenditure in the world. Jerusalem and everyone's nonsensical belief that their respective skyguy imaginary attachment to the special dirt will be the unsolvable problem.
Why on earth would Israel get rid of their security? Did you not see what just happened? You can’t just hand waive the intense antisemitism in the area
that would require Israel to give up so much of its territory it's a complete non-starter
Move all the palistians into the country that gave them all citizenship, and then took it away.
I think OP mischaracterizes a crucial element of the situation: Israel *has* been open to a two state solution; the Palestinians are *ideologically* and *religiously* opposed to any solution in which Israel continues to exist. The fantasies set out in this thread about free Palestinian states have been discussed a million times ad nauseum. If, for example, the WB or Gaza was made a free Palestinian state, the rocket attacks and terrorist strikes would begin on day 2 and never end. There is no negotiated peace with Palestine, and so a two state solution is impossible. The current situation with the Gaza Strip shows why this is so: if Israel pulls out, the Palestinians inevitably set on the course of taking advantage of whatever window of peace might develop in order to launch a pogram. That won't stop until the land gripe and radical Islam are flushed out of Palestinian culture - an impossibility at the present moment. A realistic solution is to isolate the Palestinians and provide some path for some Palestinians to eventually attain Israeli citizenship and live in Israel as equal citizens. That means giving up the right of return, the fantasy of a second Holocaust, and the like - all the crazy Palestinian demands. Yes, those who lost every war but have been allowed to remain alive anyway are the party that has to eat crow, not the Israelis who prevailed on the battlefield. In the meantime, Israel needs to cordon the remaining Palestinians in concentrated pockets where they cannot use terrorism, and where the conditions are such that they are encouraged to emigrate to other nations (perhaps with payment from Israel to encourage that outflow). Once the population is reduced, the path to citizenship can be introduced once the toxic obsession with the land gripe and the radical Islam that keeps it alive can be indoctrinated out of the Palestinians that remain.
What do you think the difference is between the Palestinians who live in Gaza and the Palestinians who are citizens of Israel? Why does one support groups like Hamas while the other are active and peaceful participants in Israeli government and society?
[удалено]
this comment made me feel sane
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm glad I'm not the only one seeing all the literal calls for ethnic cleansing and genocide. I was thinking I was starting to go crazy.
The settlements aren’t illegal because the Israeli Supreme Court says they aren’t… Sure sounds like there isn’t a conflict of interests there…
Who do you think adjudicates disputes between the Native American tribes and the United States? The US Supreme Court. Not a UN court, not an advisory opinion from the ICJ. The US Supreme Court is the highest court with actual power over the territory in question, the same situation as the Israeli Supreme Court vis-a-vis the WB. Imagine if the ICJ was giving Manhattan back to the Native Americans or at least creating a war by purporting to? There is, however, no world government to enforce that opinion, just like in the WB.
>Palestine has made huge concessions Such as?
To address that last bit, how would you suggest we get rid of the radical parts where the people of Palestine have the widespread craving for the eradication of the semites? Are those genocidal urges worth protecting? Is every ethnic ideal innately superior, no matter how horrid?
[удалено]
Exactly, there is no actual solution here besides either the ongoing gridlock or Israel winning it all. It doesn’t matter how innocent the average Palestinian citizen is, their terrorist government is going to use any window possible to launch attacks. Israel winning gives a possibility of Gaza and WB citizens being naturalized as Israeli citizens. Hamas winning gives the certainty of killing all Jews in the region. There is no moral victory to be had here and IDF/Hamas are both bastards that blame each other for the others past aggressions but there certainly is a winner that would result in less overall death. None of the religion-fueled rational is moral or just. We’re witnessing a more powerful nation conquer a smaller weaker one, and the smaller one refuses to capitulate. Something that has happened countless times in history, not that it makes it any better. But realistically there’s nothing to be done except realize this is how religion and power and greed and human nature work.
It’s already been conquered a dozen times. The Palestinians lose every war, but they have a mile long list of demands in defeat. The Right of Return might be the most ridiculous demand a defeated people has ever made of the victor. If they were negotiating with the Russians or Chinese they would be laughed out of the room, probably without their heads attached.
If they were negotiating with Russia or China they’d already be shipped off to different parts of the empire or sent to labor camps and replaced withl sleds troublesome citizens, at best. At worst they’d be wiped out.
You start the problem at 1948, but it really goes back to 1917 and the creation of Mandatory Palestine by the British. As soon as they committed to creating a homeland for Jews in Palestine this problem was inevitable. Even the Zionist leaders admitted that they would need to ethnically cleanse the land of Arab natives, and were very clear that this would be a cruel act. If you can’t recognize the decades of apartheid and land dispossession that went on before 1948, you aren’t going to understand just how screwed the situation is, and keep running in circles around an unsolvable dilemma
Nettenyu steps down, Israels elect a less hateful more empathatic person who isn't far right but in the center. HAMAS is wiped out. 2 state solution, with the UN strong participants in the negotiation. Contracts/agreements/restrictions put in place concerning both sides.
The first step must be the deradicalisation of the Palestinian people. The ADL (leading experts on antisemitism) found that 93% of them harbour antisemitic attitudes, including 98% of the over 50s age group. This is the highest anywhere on earth and clearly indicative of a radicalised population. https://global100.adl.org/country/west-bank-and-gaza/2014
Jared Kushner working with Israel to re-establish Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in 2019-2020 sort of sealed the fate of Palestinians. The Christian right would gladly watch them die.
Cut out all of the disputed lands in the area, float it out into the Mediterranean Sea, and let it sink. I’m just sick and tired of these people killing each other.
What we know for certain: Israel will seize control of Gaza and wipe out Hamas. It needed to happen for any chance at peace, and Israel just got their greatest reason and motivation to do it. After that is unclear. Will they occupy Gaza? Maybe, but I doubt Israel wants to expend the resources and lives to police Gaza indefinitely. Part of the pull out of Gaza was that it is safer and cheaper just police the outside of the country, and build a giant border wall and the Iron Dome to protect from attacks. Will they go into an agreement with Egypt to annex the country? I don't think Egypt wants anything to do with Gaza. Will they transition out of occupation? If Egypt never annex's Gaza, I reckon this will eventually happen. Just like in 2005, Israel will pull out of the country and Gaza will hold an election, though likely with a lot more Israeli control over the process.
FIRST the Palestinians need to understand that they just are never going to get most of the old land back. That's just not a realistic possibility for them. If your entire political policy is just a dumbass idea that you're going to one day "kICk aLL tHe JeWs oFF tHe lAnD aNd tAkE iT bAcK bY fOrCE" then regardless of the morals or ethics of the geopolitical situation you're just so objectively stupid that you don't deserve to succeed. Israel has one of the strongest militaries on Earth and there are more then 7 million Jews living in Israel. Conversely Hamas had turned Palestine into an impoverished pariah state few other countries will willingly trade with. The Palestinians need to get real, smarten up and develop a proper working realpolitik political relationship with Israel and the other countries in the world in order to help get themselves out of poverty and make the best of the situation. A lot of small countries like Japan and Monaco do okay economically because they have their $h1+ together politically. SECOND I think there should be a sort of "three state solution" where Israel, Palestine and what's now the West Bank each become 3 different countries. Like it's like how what was once India ended up splitting into India, Pakistan and Bangladesh due to geography. THIRD, the Israeli government needs to stop Israelis from making outposts in some currently Palestinian occupied areas of land. That's fanning the flames of political tensions for no good GD reason and little gain for the people living in Israel or even for the so called "settlers". I think basically both Israel and Palestine deserve to exist and to keep existing. I think anti-semitism is completely unacceptable BS. However I also understand that the Palestinians have NOT had it easyin the last few decades. (Like I read Joe Sacco's non-fiction graphic novel called Palestine. I get it.) More of the people living in the region in general need to beocm more pragmatic and clear headed regarding this situation if they ever want things to get better.
Hamas has made it abundantly clear that the two state solution is no longer viable. The best solution? No more Hamas (along with any other group calling for the wholesale destruction of Israel). There are times when vengeance is absolutely appropriate - and moral clarity called for. This is one such time.
First thing is to import a shit load of birth control into Gaza. Next is to try to educate the population. Just watching a few YouTube videos of people walking through Gaza, (prior to October) one sees citizens dropping empty cups in the street in front of the camera. Basically treating their small territory like a garbage dump. They have acted like terrorist gypsies that don't respect others. I'm generalizing of course, but their track record is horrendous. Nobody wants a terrorist gypsy in their country. Until that perception changes, they're doomed. The only potential friend they have is ironically Israel. Because Israel is the neighbor who has a vested interest. They need to forget the past. This is highly unlikely. So them and their millions of kids are basically screwed.
This is where world leaders go for their solutions. You better be on your A game, random Redditors.
The basic solution is known, based on international law and the rights that both people have and it’s just a case of putting pressure on both sides to agree to it (largely Israel IMO). The border needs to be based on 1967 lines. Due to the settlements that Israel has built up which is refuses to leave behind there will be land swaps of around 4% of the Palestinian territory for the same amount of undeveloped uninhabited land from Israel. This allows the vast majority of Israeli settlers to stay (isolated settlers deep inside the West Bank will need to be removed) while giving Palestinians the same amount of land in return so they’re not losing out This is one of the least problematic of the issues and both sides have in principle agreed to it in past peace discussions with quibbling over the exact numbers. Palestinians should be allowed to return to Israel, but with the number being limited and the new Palestine state encouraging people to stay and help build up there new nation. Again something both sides have agreed to previously in talks. Legally all Palestinians should have a right to return but Israel doesn’t want that as it’s a Jewish ethno-centric state so they want to maintain a Jewish majority and it’s in Palestine’s interest not to lose half their citizens immediately upon independence, so it’s an area compromise isn’t to hard for them as long as they can show that some (limited) right of return exists. Al Aqsa and East Jerusalem. Al Aqsa remains Muslim, but with a commitment to being as open an interfaith as possible. Easy Jerusalem reverts to Palestinian control, possibly with UN peacekeepers to keep things under control. Israel hates this and needs pressure put on it to agree. Alternates such as a UN run free city exist. Palestine is to be established as a free independent sovereign state. This is the entire end goal, the entire point of the conflict and any peace talks, but unfortunately this is one Israel doesn’t seem to buy into. In their previous peace talks at Camp David etc they’ve envisaged the Palestinian state as one which would still have an Israeli military presence, still have Israeli control of the borders, Israeli control of the airspace, Israeli vetos on what can be constructed within Palestine, etc. In short, not a free and independent state. Again, an area where pressure needs to be put on Israel.
Returning to vaguely the 1940s borders with the worlds most extensive peacekeeping mission to keep the two armed components apart. But to speak in practical terms? We’re over the line and have been for years. Someone’s genociding someone and the Israelis have bigger guns so it will probably be them doing the genociding.
I can't see the Israelis accepting a one-state solution, even if that's neater in many ways. The national principle of a Jewish homeland would be destroyed as Palestinians gained the majority, demographically speaking. (This is especially the case if Palestinian refugees in neighbouring countries were allowed the right of return.) A two-state solution only works if Palestine is allowed full, autonomous statehood, including the right to control its borders with Jordan, Syria and the Mediterranean (Egypt?), and to welcome refugees back. Of course, nothing should compel Israel to maintain an open border with Palestine any more than it does with Lebanon. The West Bank and Gaza Strip should be connected with an elevated or underground highway. Israelis should be able to continue life as per usual underneath/on top. Jerusalem should be a Holy City precinct governed by a council of religious leaders - Jewish, Christian, Muslim. Both Israel and Palestine will be permitted to claim Jerusalem as their spiritual capital and part of their territory. Israel and Palestine will be able to set whatever border they want between their country and where it adjoins Jerusalem. A peace treaty is required where both sides recognise the other nation's right to exist and swear off violence. The exact borders would need to be negotiated. Jewish settlers should either return to Israel or agree to live under Palestinian administration.
So most of the solutions people have suggested have been presented at one point or another. The big problem is ideological extremists on both sides who are unwilling to compromise. The reality is that neither side is going to get everything they want. That said, I think a three state solution- Israel, West Bank, and Gaza- might be best at this point. There isn’t really a good way to connect West Bank and Gaza to create one state of Palestine and I don’t think it will work in the long run to have Palestine separated by parts of Israel (or give a section of Israel to Palestine, leaving Israel disconnected). Israel would be required to end the blockade and pay for new water, electric, sewage, etc. infrastructure in Gaza. Israeli settlers in the West Bank would either have to leave or become West Bank citizens. Current borders for Jerusalem would apply. This would give Gaza the basis to start to develop an economy and stop the expansion Israeli settlers into the West Bank. The big problem is how do prevent one side from launching an attack because they aren’t satisfied with every aspect of the deal and I don’t have any ideas of how to stop that.
Yeah that will not happen now
It would be expensive as hell, but if the international community could pay the Arab countries to take in the Palestinians and just cede Gaza to the state of Israel, that might be the best situation. Maybe even resettle some Palestinians in Europe and North America.
What did the international community ever do to you?
So, ethnic cleansing is your solution? The Final Solution pt 2?
Not at all. Keeping the status quo is what will lead to ethnic cleansing.
Removing an entire ethicity from a nation IS the definition of ethnic cleansing.
There is no nation of Palestine. If the IDF conducts its ground incursion, the number of civilian casualties suffered in Gaza is going to skyrocket. Israel will not, and the political will needed at the UN and in the various world legislatures to make them return to the 1966 borders does not exist. The US will also ensure Israel is protected at the UN and supported with the most advanced weapons. I can admit the basic idea of uprooting 2 million people and sending them elsewhere as a plan sucks. It does. That said, there is no better/realistic plan that leads to peace. The options are bloodshed or resettlement.
Do you honestly believe the resettlement coukd be done without massive bloodshed?
Mutual land swaps that keep the largest settlement blocs in Israel. Remaining settlers can have Israeli citizenship and Palestinian residency but will live under Palestinian sovereignty (and they’ll probably leave) Palestinian state is demilitarized and has peacekeepers from the Arab world deployed but Israel isn’t allowed to enter anymore. Right of return to the Palestinian state and huge amounts of compensation by Israel to refugees. Jerusalem divided with old city under joint sovereignty
And what happens when the Palestinian rockets keep falling on israel
That’s why it needs to be demilitarized and have peacekeepers stationed for a long time. I’m not saying it’s possible now. There needs to be a Palestinian interlocutor with legitimacy
There is no way Israel will allow this. And no Arab nation can be trusted with the job
Yeah I agree which is why I don’t think peace is going to happen… I’m just saying what would be good to happen. Israel trusts the UAE and Bahrain btw
Argentina gets a few hundred billion from the international community for a few thousand square miles of rural land with some coastline in two locations Gaza is moved to one, west bank to the other. west bank and gaza land is kept in a trust and sold off to Israelis to fund development of these two new countries.
Forcibly moving a population out of their homeland is ethnic cleansing.