The Two-State Solution for Israelis and Palestinians

[TheUria24]

It's not a matter of who is not Israeli or Palestinian What's the best way to end the conflict

Anyone who wants to help push the two sides to talk

If they offer a conditions for talks fine

But can not be only one side will offer

Conditions must be mutually and agreed by both Israeli and Palestinian sides

Enough of outside intervention

This does not concern the security of your country

but Ours

[RICHARDTOMLEY10WHARF]

you are both as bad as eachother ,stop now and start talking ,why so much death and destruction ?why ? innocent s dont deserve this ,start by obeying un resolutions and also israels genuine right to exist

[dozgare]

may I say that you've been either very biest in this video or simply you don't know a lot of facts about the conflict. most of the people in Gaza are located in Gaza because they were kicked out of the other places, so you don't really think because Israel pulls out from Gaza that doesn't mean it was a great settlement for the people in Gaza and now they live happily ever after. their lands are still stolen they want it back, give them back their land they'll give you peace. very simple.

[VipericVampire]

I prefer a one state where both Arabs and Jews coexist peacefully. Sure, a two-state is good, but there might still be tensions between both groups. If we, however, establish real peace and love between these two groups, it will be a better, more durable, way less violent and united country.

[ShmorgelBorgel]

@VipericVampire

"I prefer a one state where both Arabs and Jews coexist peacefully. Sure, a two-state is good, but there might still be tensions between both groups"

It's a nice fairytale dream. Look at Iraq, which is swallowed up in sectarian violence, look at Lebanon, look at the former Yugoslavia. Even Belgium has a lot of tensions between Flemish (Dutch-speaking) and Waloons (French-speaking). There are two distinct national communities here, each of which is entitled to self-determination

[VipericVampire]

@ShmorgelBorgel

Yes, I realized the utopic nature of my beliefs a long time ago.

[ShmorgelBorgel]

@VipericVampire

Ok! :-)

Although--the idea is not impossible that at some point in the future, if the Arab states recognize Israel as having a right to exist, and if they become free societies, and if some sort of Palestinian Arab state is created

then Israel, the Arab states, Iran, etc..can enter a confederation sort of like the EU where everybody can live and work in the neighboring country--yet they can all still retain their ethnic/political identities. That's what mbrown advocates.

[abdishtar]

You are absolutely right.

[schwrz78]

Thank you for recommending the debate between Levy and Rosner. It was quite interesting, although I think that for someone purporting to be an expert on Middle East affairs, Daniel Levy proposes a pretty absurd idea. This is due not only to the objections Rosner has raised (the central one being that even leftists feel cheated in the aftermath of the Gaza withdrawl so it could never fly with the public) but also because, from a practical standpoint...

[schwrz78]

...announcing in advance a time table for a pullout amounts to asking every 5'th grade "resistance" organization to step up on terror attacks sevenfold since every one of said organizations will have a vested interest in attempting to claim that THEY are the ones that made the wretched Zionists pull out (thereby gaining political power of course). This phenomenon manifested itself several times in the past and is, among other reasons, why the Lebanon pullout...

[schwrz78]

...looked the way it did (although the earlier than scheduled pullout did save lives, it was certainly done under less than optimal conditions and certainly perceived as a sign of weakness by the Arab world). Sadly, it seems that the lesson has not been learned by the US, this being clearly seen in Obama's (presumably capitulating to PR considerations) anouncing a timetable for an Iraqi pullout.

[mbrown0315]

I agree with your comments for the most part. I maintain that the settlements should be withdrawn ASAP (preferably as part of a signed agreement but, if necessary, unilaterally). Either that or the settlers should be allowed to remain as citizens or just residents of Palestine (Qureia recently expressed measured support for this idea). The military occupation, on the other hand, should remain as long as necessary/possible.

[schwrz78]

You're right, should probably have stressed that I was reffering to a military pullout. I've intentionally overlooked the fate of the settlers because it does not really interest me as such but perhaps a few words are in order: I consider them to be religious lunatics that represent a clear danger to Israel. As far as I'm concerned they can hold on to the illegal settlements (without military protection) or leave to Israel proper (which in this context includes major settlement blocks).

[schwrz78]

So long as the ties between them (insofar as they identify themselves as settlers) and the state of Israel (to the extent that these ties even exist) are completely severed I don't really care. As for a military pullout, in my opinion it could be implemented as soon as several technological difficulties are overcome. This would not depend on Palis at all, as I am extremely skeptical that negotiations can be fruitful (though I do support dialog at all times as a matter of principle).

[ListenLiberal]

3) The go-to hasbara escape is to cite the Gaza withdrawal and its aftermath, which is supposed to represent an example of the Palestinians being mean (firing rockets) after Israel does something nice (withdrawing from Gaza). Of course, nothing about Israel's withdrawal from Gaza ever gave the Palestinians any real hope of a viable, autonomous homeland with sovereign borders. Israel just kicked out a few thousand kooks from one part of the territories while even more moved into another part.

[mbrown0315]

1) This is diplomacy, not playground logic. It's just not that simple.

2) I agree that there are "Greater Israel" interests that need to be defeated, but I think building the argument entirely on those interests is entirely oversimplified.

[ListenLiberal]

1a) Oh, I didn't realize this was srs bizns. To me, it seemed that Israel's conquering-hero/suffering-vict­im complex made it act like an irrational child.

2a) From Jeffrey Goldberg I learned that pleas for nuance and complexity are the last refuge of the apologist.

3a) You yourself concede that Israel has no real interest in facing down the West Bank settlers on a large scale, why should the Palestinians think any different?

[mbrown0315]

1b) I outlined in my video why it's not as simple as just leaving the territory. Again...needs to be a real process. You would perhaps have a point if the Gaza withdrawal had accomplished nothing but kept things static. However, the fact that it turned the process backwards means we have a problem.

[mbrown0315]

2b) Do some research on the strategic value of the trans-Samarian corridor, the hill acquifer, the number of attacks prevented by complex intelligence operations in the West Bank and then tell me that it's clear as day that Israel is more defensible within 1948 boundaries. Ask yourself why Fatah support just happens to pool in Christian population centers like Ramallah and then think carefully about the likelihood of Hamas coming to power in a post-withdrawal vacuum.

[mbrown0315]

3b) It realizes the risk, but it also realizes the interest in acting in accordance with the desires of 70% of its citizenry. This will play out in negotiations (land swaps). Still, Amona and Gush Katif demonstrate that it can be done. There just needs to be some positive reinforcement. Would you at least concede that it would have made things a lot better had the Palestinians in Gaza showed that ending the civilian occupation absolutely produces results?

[ListenLiberal]

Yes, I will concede that. On the other hand it seems that even when the Palestinians behave as I would like them to nonviolently through more-or-less democratic organizations (by which I do NOT mean Fatah) it doesn't seem to get them anywhere.

[mbrown0315]

To which organizations are you referring?

[ListenLiberal]

International Solidarity Movement, PCR, Sabeel, the radical Arab-Israeli left parties, etc.

[mbrown0315]

Ah okay, I gotcha. Anyway, in this case it was not about accomplishing anything through a third party. It was about responding positively to a jump start of the Road Map. I'm not stupid, by the way. I realize the vote for Hamas was not necessarily a vote for the worldwide Islamic Caliphate (though I still insist that the radical element should not be downplayed). I know how corrupt Fatah is.

[mbrown0315]

I understand the desire to be governed by an organization that has a much better internal affairs record, but it just won't work in the arena of the peace process.

[mbrown0315]

3) The idea of Gaza as a litmus test for the West Bank is an old one, dating back to at least 1994. The roadmap doesn't even call for Israeli withdrawal as a first step. My sentiment is that had the Palestinians responded positively to Gaza, more would have happened in the West Bank. And again, I do think that we will be seeing withdrawal from the West Bank soon. My only hesitation is whether or not it will be according to a signed agreement. Unilateral withdrawal will raise issues.

[mbrown0315]

Clarifications: The "Gaza First" model was agreed upon by both sides; it's not just an old idea I found, liked, and decided to advertise.

[ListenLiberal]

2) For the sake of clarity, let's concede all of Rosner's points and imagine a (very) unlikely status in which Israel has withdrawn from to the Green Line and abandoned its air-land-sea claims over the borders of Palestine, and yet Palestinian attacks continue. Israel will be in a much more morally, militarily and diplomatically defendable position from which to punish and repel violence. So why doesn't Israel withdraw? Because a "Greater Israel" remains the goal of powerful Israeli interests

[ListenLiberal]

1) I think Daniel Levy's response to Shmuel Rosner was quite reasonable: the most sensible practical response to a violent adversary is to first redress any grievance for which you yourself are responsible. Of course, your concessions might fail to mollify your enemy. But the intransigence of other parties doesn't excuse us from doing what we ourselves believe to be right. If the US is occupying land in Ontario, it simply must leave, regardless of how the Canadians respond to the gesture