Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 53

Thread: Why there's no hope of peace in Israel

  1. Top | #1
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    27,521
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    124,273
    Rep Power
    100

    Why there's no hope of peace in Israel

    https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/...t-on-long-term

    Quote Originally Posted by article
    Also mostly consistent across generations, though by a much narrower majority, was rejection of permanent peace with Israel. Asked if a two-state solution should be “the end of conflict with Israel,” just 34% of young West Bank respondents answered yes; the proportion was even lower among older residents (25%).
    What's the point in making an agreement that most of the people plan to not honor?

  2. Top | #2
    Veteran Member Arctish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    4,909
    Archived
    4,540
    Total Posts
    9,449
    Rep Power
    69
    This was interesting:

    GAZANS LESS POLITICIZED

    One startling difference did emerge from this survey—not between generations, but between West Bankers and Gazans. Respondents were asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed with this provocative statement: “The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is mostly just for politicians or old people, and I simply don’t think about it very much.” In the West Bank, only one-quarter agreed even “somewhat” with that proposition, but in Gaza, the figure doubled to 52%. Also surprising was the parity between younger and older residents on this seemingly age-related question.

    The explanation for these highly counterintuitive findings almost certainly lies in the fact that Gazans have had little daily contact with Israelis since the 2005 withdrawal of soldiers and settlers. Their situation is a sharp contrast to conditions in the West Bank, where Israeli soldiers, settlers, and checkpoints are a constant reminder of the conflict.
    Maybe if the Israelis went back to their side of the 1967 borders and stopped interfering with Palestinians going about their everyday business, there'd be a similar moderation of opinion in the West Bank.

  3. Top | #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Tri Cities, WA
    Posts
    96
    Archived
    176
    Total Posts
    272
    Rep Power
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by Arctish View Post
    This was interesting:

    GAZANS LESS POLITICIZED

    One startling difference did emerge from this survey—not between generations, but between West Bankers and Gazans. Respondents were asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed with this provocative statement: “The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is mostly just for politicians or old people, and I simply don’t think about it very much.” In the West Bank, only one-quarter agreed even “somewhat” with that proposition, but in Gaza, the figure doubled to 52%. Also surprising was the parity between younger and older residents on this seemingly age-related question.

    The explanation for these highly counterintuitive findings almost certainly lies in the fact that Gazans have had little daily contact with Israelis since the 2005 withdrawal of soldiers and settlers. Their situation is a sharp contrast to conditions in the West Bank, where Israeli soldiers, settlers, and checkpoints are a constant reminder of the conflict.
    Maybe if the Israelis went back to their side of the 1967 borders and stopped interfering with Palestinians going about their everyday business, there'd be a similar moderation of opinion in the West Bank.
    Nah, that's just crazy talk! Seriously, right now Israel is it's worst enemy.

  4. Top | #4
    Contributor PyramidHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    RI
    Posts
    5,080
    Archived
    4,389
    Total Posts
    9,469
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/...t-on-long-term

    Quote Originally Posted by article
    Also mostly consistent across generations, though by a much narrower majority, was rejection of permanent peace with Israel. Asked if a two-state solution should be “the end of conflict with Israel,” just 34% of young West Bank respondents answered yes; the proportion was even lower among older residents (25%).
    What's the point in making an agreement that most of the people plan to not honor?
    Why should the Palestinians honor it? There should be one state: Palestine. Before Israeli Zionists teamed up with British military power to invade and settle there, it was Palestine. They didn't ask the inhabitants of Palestine if they were okay with somebody setting up a nation in their backyard, they just decided in 1917 that Zionist settlers were entitled to it. Thirty years later, they handed a politically neutered Palestine over to the UN, after Israel had established a firm presence there and the prior denizens were brutalized into submission. What possible justification is there for anything other than a solution of precisely one state, Palestine? What reason could there be for Palestine to honor any terms that include the legitimacy of an invading and occupying aggressor as equal to the victims of their aggression?

  5. Top | #5
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    3,801
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    6,712
    Rep Power
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/...t-on-long-term

    Quote Originally Posted by article
    Also mostly consistent across generations, though by a much narrower majority, was rejection of permanent peace with Israel. Asked if a two-state solution should be “the end of conflict with Israel,” just 34% of young West Bank respondents answered yes; the proportion was even lower among older residents (25%).
    What's the point in making an agreement that most of the people plan to not honor?
    Why should the Palestinians honor it? There should be one state: Palestine. Before Israeli Zionists teamed up with British military power to invade and settle there, it was Palestine. They didn't ask the inhabitants of Palestine if they were okay with somebody setting up a nation in their backyard, they just decided in 1917 that Zionist settlers were entitled to it. Thirty years later, they handed a politically neutered Palestine over to the UN, after Israel had established a firm presence there and the prior denizens were brutalized into submission. What possible justification is there for anything other than a solution of precisely one state, Palestine? What reason could there be for Palestine to honor any terms that include the legitimacy of an invading and occupying aggressor as equal to the victims of their aggression?
    The justification is that the people of Israel are there now. Whether there should be one state or two, everyone deserves a right to go where they please, access quality education and medical care, seek employment without discrimination, and import/export as is economically useful for the nation(s); that they are expected to buy and pay for land in a way common to all persons in their nation(s), and that they have representation in their government consummate to their existence rather than ethnic or religious background.

    People need to seriously be forced to get over the rampant fucking racism and religious divisiveness, through strong educational and economic reforms. Kicking people out, any people, is not a winning proposition. The way forward is to let people in, not push people out.

  6. Top | #6
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    16,880
    Archived
    41,943
    Total Posts
    58,823
    Rep Power
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/...t-on-long-term

    Quote Originally Posted by article
    Also mostly consistent across generations, though by a much narrower majority, was rejection of permanent peace with Israel. Asked if a two-state solution should be “the end of conflict with Israel,” just 34% of young West Bank respondents answered yes; the proportion was even lower among older residents (25%).
    What's the point in making an agreement that most of the people plan to not honor?
    Your conclusion does not follow from the article. Whether something "should be" is different than "will be".

  7. Top | #7
    Super Moderator Bronzeage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Deep South
    Posts
    6,987
    Archived
    7,568
    Total Posts
    14,555
    Rep Power
    42
    Israel has steadily followed a policy which makes a two state solution technically impossible.

    The two state solution is the only one acceptable to the Palestinians and the neighboring nations which have to deal with the Palestinians. Israel is just hoping their economic power and alliance with the US will last long enough to wear the Palestinians down. Israel-Palestine will become a quasi-apartheid state, with Israelis holding all political and economic power, and Palestinians dependent on their benevolence.

    There are two ways this could go. Israel is hoping for something modeled on the way the US handled their Native American problem. Palestinians who stay on the reservation get to pretend they have autonomy, as long as they don't make any trouble. Those who leave the reservation, have to assimilate into the mainstream Israeli economy and not make any trouble.

    The other way is much more likely. The Palestinians grow and outnumber the Israelis, but Israel refuses to concede equal rights. Israel is forced to endure the same kind of siege which South Africa endured until they finally gave up. At that point, the one state solution will be complete, but it won't be the state they wanted.

  8. Top | #8
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    27,521
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    124,273
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Arctish View Post
    Maybe if the Israelis went back to their side of the 1967 borders and stopped interfering with Palestinians going about their everyday business, there'd be a similar moderation of opinion in the West Bank.
    Maybe if they pulled back to the 67 borders they would get what they got back then--continual attacks. Why should it be different this time around?

  9. Top | #9
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    27,521
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    124,273
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/...t-on-long-term

    Quote Originally Posted by article
    Also mostly consistent across generations, though by a much narrower majority, was rejection of permanent peace with Israel. Asked if a two-state solution should be “the end of conflict with Israel,” just 34% of young West Bank respondents answered yes; the proportion was even lower among older residents (25%).
    What's the point in making an agreement that most of the people plan to not honor?
    Why should the Palestinians honor it? There should be one state: Palestine. Before Israeli Zionists teamed up with British military power to invade and settle there, it was Palestine. They didn't ask the inhabitants of Palestine if they were okay with somebody setting up a nation in their backyard, they just decided in 1917 that Zionist settlers were entitled to it. Thirty years later, they handed a politically neutered Palestine over to the UN, after Israel had established a firm presence there and the prior denizens were brutalized into submission. What possible justification is there for anything other than a solution of precisely one state, Palestine? What reason could there be for Palestine to honor any terms that include the legitimacy of an invading and occupying aggressor as equal to the victims of their aggression?
    If the Palestinians shouldn't honor it then you are saying there is no reason for Israel to make peace--you're actually supporting the status quo. Also, note that your approach leads to genocide and a world awash in nuclear terrorism. (Or, more likely, someone does a nuclear laydown, blow the whole place to bits to destroy the bombs.)

  10. Top | #10
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    27,521
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    124,273
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Bronzeage View Post
    Israel has steadily followed a policy which makes a two state solution technically impossible.

    The two state solution is the only one acceptable to the Palestinians and the neighboring nations which have to deal with the Palestinians. Israel is just hoping their economic power and alliance with the US will last long enough to wear the Palestinians down. Israel-Palestine will become a quasi-apartheid state, with Israelis holding all political and economic power, and Palestinians dependent on their benevolence.
    Did you not read the article I linked? The Palestinians do not consider a two-state solution acceptable! Their agreement would be a sham.

    The other way is much more likely. The Palestinians grow and outnumber the Israelis, but Israel refuses to concede equal rights. Israel is forced to endure the same kind of siege which South Africa endured until they finally gave up. At that point, the one state solution will be complete, but it won't be the state they wanted.
    Survival was possible in South Africa, it's not in Israel. Nuclear diplomacy 101--you never back a nuclear power into a corner. You want them backed into a corner--but they'll use their bombs in that case.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •