A state for Palestine?

[Limehouse]

If Israel is worthy of officially recognised statehood, why not Palestine? Of course, it will take some negotiations to come to an understanding over issues such a Jerusalem, but surely it is not beyond the capabilities of the United Nations?

And I am very disappointed that Obama is taking such a Zionist stance over the issue. Grow a backbone Obama.

[The Good Michael]

Lime,

Unfair. Palestinians do have a state, it's just a little bit walled off, impoverished, and cut off from the world. Creating a state for israel seems tp have backfired. The same can be said of a Muslim state within India (Pakistan). Any time a state is formed around religion, it becomes a nightmare for all others.

Mike

[Limehouse]

Lime,

Unfair. Palestinians do have a state, it's just a little bit walled off, impoverished, and cut off from the world. Creating a state for israel seems tp have backfired. The same can be said of a Muslim state within India (Pakistan). Any time a state is formed around religion, it becomes a nightmare for all others.

Mike

Fair point Mike, but it doesn't have to be a state based totally on religion. Don't the Palestinians have the right to have a place they can historically call 'home'. Statehood is cultural as a whole lot more other things.

[Sister Hyde]

Lime,

Unfair. Palestinians do have a state, it's just a little bit walled off, impoverished, and cut off from the world. Creating a state for israel seems tp have backfired. The same can be said of a Muslim state within India (Pakistan). Any time a state is formed around religion, it becomes a nightmare for all others.

Mike

can't argue with that!

[Sister Hyde]

a state should be lay! nondenominational

[Robert]

There is no solution to the Middle East problem. And even if there is, we're likely to discover who the Ripper was first.

[Limehouse]

There is no solution to the Middle East problem. And even if there is, we're likely to discover who the Ripper was first.

So, everyone should just give up then?

[Errata]

If Israel is worthy of officially recognised statehood, why not Palestine? Of course, it will take some negotiations to come to an understanding over issues such a Jerusalem, but surely it is not beyond the capabilities of the United Nations?

And I am very disappointed that Obama is taking such a Zionist stance over the issue. Grow a backbone Obama.

Firstly, Obama is not taking a Zionist stance on this issue. He proposes Israel revert to the pre 1967 borders. Ironically, this solution does not create a Palestinian state. It would establish an Arab state, one that would belong to Jordan.

This issue is so effing complicated it is mind boggling. First of all, you have to define what a Palestinian is, and that's not nearly as clear cut as it sounds. The majority of those considered to be historically Palestinians did not attempt to separate, or go into exile at the formation of Israel. They are Israelis now, and are fine with it. The majority of "Palestinians" who went into exile and fought in the various wars were not in fact Palestinian. They were Arabs. And there is a difference. A great many Arabs moved into Palestine during Ottoman and British rule, seizing land from Palestinians. These are the ones who fought the first Israeli-Arab war, and these are the ones who went into exile.

Palestine had not been self governing since before the time of Jesus. Which certainly means they are due for their own state, but there is no historical right. So why were the Jews worthy? Well, they certainly weren't any more worthy than the Palestinians, but no country was willing to take them, and the UN felt bad about the Holocaust thing. Which is no great reason, but that's how it happened. On a side note, the British were super pissed at the Arabs/Palestinians for trying to revolt. It was probably as much revenge as it was guilt.

When Henry VII seized the British throne, he had a right to it. He was a Lancaster. Unfortunately by that logic there were about a dozen people who had more right to the throne than he did. He claimed the throne by right of conquest. Which is a legitimate right. And that's the right Israel has now. Three or four times now large armies of neighbors have tried to invade or conquer. And Israel has always won. Arabs rose up and were conquered. Palestinians rose up and were conquered. Even if the UN had no right to grant statehood, they have earned it now.

And all of this is based on the assumption that no Palestinian intended state already exists, which even the members of the UN in 1948 could not agree on. Remember that the British controlled territory of Palestine was more than four times as big as Israel is now. Jordan came out of that area, I think Lebanon did as well, the West Bank had been set aside for an Arab state but Jordan seized it... all the while there is no historical significance to the Palestinians, it is simply a no mans land they have occupied. The area was intended as an Arab state, but Palestinians are not Arabs so that's a little confusing. Also there were many people who worked on this issue who thought that Jordan was being set aside for Palestinians. And if that's true, then a Palestinian state already exists, it just isn't Israel. Wouldn't that be a new complication?

If the majority of the people in the West Bank are Arabs, then in it would not be emancipation, it would be an invasion. I have no problem with self governed Palestinians. Arabs already are self governed, and they already have a homeland or five. I have no problem with the annexation of the West Bank, as long as the same courtesies are extended to the Jews living there as the Israelis extend to Palestinians and Arabs in the majority of their state. I think that it is disgusting that the Jews of all people should build ghettos for undesirables, but I don't get a say. But the pre 1967 borders don't help anyone, and this issue is too important to just throw some land at some people.

Palestinians have bad friends. They need to get rid of their bad friends. Hamas is not helping them, and doesn't have their best interests at heart. As long as other governments wonder if they are going to end up creating a puppet state for terrorists, they aren't going to get what they want.

[Robert]

Hi Limehouse

No, not just give up. Things can be done to mitigate the situation. But when two nations both claim the same piece of land, there's nothing much that can be done except to try to keep them separate. Trying to get them to mix, will only lead to more trouble,

[Natalie Severn]

The full implementation of international law,including the end of Israel's illegal occupation and the right of return of Palestinian refugees,are essential for a just solution' -PSC statement [full text on website].

As Gharda Karmi-Palestinian academic argues : 'What is really needed is not a 'two state' solution which can only be an interim measure towards the only real solution: The transformation of the current state of Israel and the Palestinian territories into one state for those who live there and those who were expelled from it.'
The most sensible outcome obviously.

[Robert]

Nats, these people hate each other. For god's sake, build a wall between them.

[Natalie Severn]

Robert,
That was no solution in Northern Ireland was it.
Norma

[Errata]

In retrospect, it seems like it would have been a good idea for Israel to have kept a good portion of the Sinai Peninsula and given it to the Palestinians. Let Egypt keep the Suez canal, and give the rest to the PLO. It's a sensible border, it would not sandwich the Palestinians between two potentially hostile countries (in theory), no Israeli citizens would have to be moved, and it would give Israel the enormous satisfaction of shoving Egypt's vast hypocrisy on the Palestinian situation back in their face.

[Errata]

Nats, these people hate each other. For god's sake, build a wall between them.

That's not a fair statement. For the most part they don't hate each other. In most of Israel they live together in mostly perfect harmony. The problem is not ideological. Jews have no problems with Muslims, and most Muslims have no problems with Jews. But if a court ruled that your friend had complete control over your house, though you could continue to live there, you aren't going to be friends for long.

No Palestinian or Arab is going to gain a ton of political power in Israel anytime soon. And while that's not helping the situation, Israel just isn't ready for that yet. And I'm not sure they should be. It took us about 175 years after Emancipation to elect a black President, and we still have never had a woman in power. It's not surprising Israel is not jumping to hand the country over to a people who were shelling them not too terribly long ago.

But this means Palestinian are not adequately represented, and to be frank would not have even the tiny bit of what they have now without the good cop/bad cop game they have played for the past 40 years. They have no say in their country, their politics or their daily lives. They aren't wrong to want it, But Israel is not wrong to not want to give it to them.

The irony is, all of these "friends" that rally to the cause of the Palestinians could solve this in a second. They choose not to. Israeli's don't want to keep the Palestinians out of power, they don't want to "reward" the terrorism that has occurred, nor do they want to reward Palestinians choice in associates. If someone else wants to, that's fine. Jordon could easily give up land to form a Palestinian state, land that was just as much a part of the original borders as Israel. But they don't. Egypt has plenty of land to spare, also in the confines of the original borders, and certainly sympathizes enough with the Palestinians to smuggle weapons into the West Bank. Don't see them hopping into action. Lebanon and Syria also aren't being that giving. An argument could even be made for Iraq as a homeland.

The truth is, the "friends" of the Palestinians are more interested in the destruction of Israel than they are of the creation of Palestine. The Palestinians have let outside forces manipulate them into constantly attacking the one country they are likely to get anything from. Israel has been in a position to give them their own homeland any number of times. And a good portion of Israelis, ESPECIALLY the soldiers who have served in the past seven years are sick over the way these people are treated. And the worldwide Jewish population is as well, and they are capable of exerting quite a bit of pressure on Israel. But now the Israeli's can't trust the Palestinians, because the Palestinians have bad friends. Now there is no pressure that can be exerted because now it's not a matter of politics, it's a matter of national security. And the Palestinians can't trust the Israelis, because every time they seem to come to some sort of agreement, a new president is elected who invalidates it. And Israel has done the one thing it of all countries should not have done, and that is such a betrayal of what Israel is supposed to stand for that who could possibly trust them now?

They don't hate each other. They hate what they feel like the other is forcing them to do. But as individuals I promise you most of us get along just fine.

[Robert]

Nats and Errata

Northern Ireland is "solved" - at least, for the time being - because one section of the community gave up the demand on the territory. Can you see the Palestinians or the Israelis doing that?

I didn't say the problem was ideological. It's a nationalist problem.

As for them not hating each other, I guess I must have been asleep during the last 40-odd years.