Best statehood solution?

[crooks]

Two states - an Israeli one and a Palestinian one.

Israel should also remove all settlers/squatters from the West Bank - they're not wanted and they have no right to infringe (in a deliberate and calculated manner) on part of the Palestinian territory.

[Stan187]

Two states - an Israeli one and a Palestinian one.

Israel should also remove all settlers/squatters from the West Bank - they're not wanted and they have no right to infringe (in a deliberate and calculated manner) on part of the Palestinian territory.

Why have they no right to be there? Because its going to be the Arab state and they're not Arab? I hope you plan on removing all the Arabs who've settled within green line Israel, in that case.

[ZFBoxcar]

Stan, Israeli Arabs didn't settle in Israel, they lived there before the state existed. They didn't expropriate land from Jewish inhabitants in order to build their homes. As well, Israeli Arabs do not diminish Jewish Israeli standard of living by demanding segregated highways and a disproportionate amount of water supplies for their agriculture. You've seen my posts, you know I like the state of Israel, but I'm sorry, there is no equivalence there. I'm with you if you want to compare Palestinian refugees to Jews expelled from Arab states, but no comparison of Israeli Arabs to Jewish settlers can really stand without serious twisting of reality.

A final solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has to end with either a land trade or settlers withdrawing to Israel proper, anything else would simply be a peace that the strong imposes on the weak, which given the radicalism of Palestinian society, wouldn't last long until the next Intifada.

[crooks]

Why have they no right to be there? Because its going to be the Arab state and they're not Arab? I hope you plan on removing all the Arabs who've settled within green line Israel, in that case.

They have no right to be there because they are deliberately antagonising relations and hoping to keep certain parts of the West Bank in the event of seperation, I saw images on RTE about a female Jewish settler yelling "We are not ceding one inch of the holy land" at the news reporter when questioned on a two state solution.

Send such people home, they do not belong in Palestine when all they essentially want to do is this:



Before the Israeli lobby attacks me, yes, Palestinians have commited atrocities upon the Israelis, terrible and unsympathisable ones - At he same time you can only be pissed on for so long by a state that is determined to crush, disperse and demean you before cracking.

I don't agree with the methods, but they need to stand up and be counted.

As for Arabs moving to the new Palestine state, they certainly should where possible - mass population moving is normally deplorable, but it's going to be neccissary, Jews and Palestinians will each have a state which they can call home.......And Yes, I'm proposing a nationality based on ethnicity for the first few years to cement the footing of both, it's clear that no other solution will work (the unavoidable minority in each country will constantly attempt to undermine and topple the state they live in, so we need to move these into the new states, regardless of where their origin is).

[Stan187]

Stan, Israeli Arabs didn't settle in Israel, they lived there before the state existed. They didn't expropriate land from Jewish inhabitants in order to build their homes.Arabs in the West Bank in Hebron, massacred Jews and then all loaded them onto buses and expelled them. They're still settling on those people's land. Has that been rectified? As well, Israeli Arabs do not diminish Jewish Israeli standard of living by demanding segregated highways and a disproportionate amount of water supplies for their agriculture.If Israeli Arabs were being attacked on shared highways very often, you bet your bottom dollar they'd demand themselves some segregated highways. You've seen my posts, you know I like the state of Israel, but I'm sorry, there is no equivalence there. I'm with you if you want to compare Palestinian refugees to Jews expelled from Arab states, but no comparison of Israeli Arabs to Jewish settlers can really stand without serious twisting of reality.

A final solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has to end with either a land trade or settlers withdrawing to Israel proper, anything else would simply be a peace that the strong imposes on the weak, which given the radicalism of Palestinian society, wouldn't last long until the next Intifada.I'm with you on the land trade, but if people want to push there being no Jews left in the Arab state, it sure as hell better go the other way around and absorb Arabs from Israel. Because the only real way to end an ethnic conflict is separation until those groups can start to overcome the mutual hatred of their parents. To those people in Ariel and Maaleh Adumim, that is their land and their home as far as they are concerned. There are people who have been born there and lived there their whole lives this generation. Telling them to go back to Israel proper is as foreign to them as telling West Bank Arabs to go back Jordan

.

[Stan187]

They have no right to be there because they are deliberately antagonising relations and hoping to keep certain parts of the West Bank in the event of seperation, I saw images on RTE about a female Jewish settler yelling "We are not ceding one inch of the holy land" at the news reporter when questioned on a two state solution.And that woman of course speaks for all of them, and therefore they're all purposeful antagonist. What neat categorizing.

Send such people home, they do not belong in Palestine when all they essentially want to do is this:



Should I start posting up pictures of dead Israelis? Is that how you see a point proven, by grouping over a quarter of a million people into that picture. Should I post up pictures of dead Israelis and say that Arabs don't deserve to be here because that is what all of them want to do? Interesting way to make a point, buddy.

Before the Israeli lobby attacks me,

Oh, what a classy act you are, so now anyone that disagrees with you is part of the Israel lobby, and let me guess, while we're at it, part of the Zionist Occupied Government conspiracy too, right? When all else fails, blaim the ZOG machine!

yes, Palestinians have commited atrocities upon the Israelis, terrible and unsympathisable ones - but I have to say I see the direction they're coming from, you can only be pissed on for so long by a state that is determined to crush, disperse and demean you before cracking.

As for Arabs moving to the new Palestine state, they certainly should where possible - mass population moving is normally deplorable, but it's going to be neccissary, Jews and Palestinians will each have a state which they can call home.......And Yes, I'm proposing a nationality based on ethnicity for the first few years to cement the footing of both, it's clear that no other solution will work (the unavoidable minority in each country will constantly attempt to undermine and topple the state they live in, so we need to move these into the new states, regardless of where their origin is).

.

[crooks]

And that woman of course speaks for all of them, and therefore they're all purposeful antagonist. What neat categorizing.

I never claimed she did - but she's Joesmoe Settler, the everday person, not a quack.......I don't know any Israelis personally, so maybe you can enlighten me as to what exactly they think is to gain by moving into Palestine?

Surely it's not for the charming neighbours.

Should I start posting up pictures of dead Israelis? Is that how you see a point proven, by grouping over a quarter of a million people into that picture. Should I post up pictures of dead Israelis and say that Arabs don't deserve to be here because that is what all of them want to do? Interesting way to make a point, buddy.

Bit of a selective quote there Stan:

"yes, Palestinians have commited atrocities upon the Israelis, terrible and unsympathisable ones"

And I never said Israelis don't deserve to be here, and you never will hear me say that - Israel exists, fact.

However, Israelis have no place in the West Bank - they have Israel, why the landgrab?

Palestine SHOULD exist, It's THE ONLY WAY that we'll see peace in the Middle East.

I deplore the way we're not allowed debate Israel's actions maturely though, purely because it's a Jewish state.
Israel treats the Palestinians like dogs, to be pushed around and spat on, and we stand idly by (well I suppose you don't, your country funds the bullets).

Oh, what a classy act you are, so now anyone that disagrees with you is part of the Israel lobby, and let me guess, while we're at it, part of the Zionist Occupied Government conspiracy too, right? When all else fails, blaim the ZOG machine!

LOL, I'm not actually into conspiracy theories, I was referring to a strong, Pro-Israel group on this board.

Stilll, maybe an shadowy Israeli lobby does exist, the argument is pathetically one-sided in the US, surely there's a reason why?

[ZFBoxcar]

Arabs in the West Bank in Hebron, massacred Jews and then all loaded them onto buses and expelled them. They're still settling on those people's land. Has that been rectified?

Well if what you call rectified is 400 Israelis getting practically half the city to themselves with a full army presence, then yes. A little more than rectified I would say..

If Israeli Arabs were being attacked on shared highways very often, you bet your bottom dollar they'd demand themselves some segregated highways.

Wrong order of events I believe. Israel made segregated highways when the main conflict was between Israel and the PLO outside the territories (aka terrorist attacks by the PLO on airliners etc). The Palestinian population, while no doubt hating Israel, was not in active conflict with Israel in any serious way. Its possible I'm mistaken on that, but if you think so, please provide a source. Also, I suppose you are somehow going to argue that the Palestinians FORCED Israel to take the lion's share of their water leaving them with almost nothing for their own agriculture?

I'm with you on the land trade, but if people want to push there being no Jews left in the Arab state, it sure as hell better go the other way around and absorb Arabs from Israel. Because the only real way to end an ethnic conflict is separation until those groups can start to overcome the mutual hatred of their parents. To those people in Ariel and Maaleh Adumim, that is their land and their home as far as they are concerned. There are people who have been born there and lived there their whole lives this generation. Telling them to go back to Israel proper is as foreign to them as telling West Bank Arabs to go back Jordan

So for the sake of revenge, you demand that the population exchange has to go both ways, even when there is no need for it? Israeli Arabs have done nothing to deserve expulsion, while Israeli settlers DO cause hardships for Palestinians both through their own actions and by the required IDF presence to protect them. I used to share your view of ethnic conflict, and if Israeli Arabs are willing to go for it or be bought out or whatever, fine. But I care about Israel maintaining its democracy, and one thing a democracy doesn't do is strip 20% of its inhabitants of citizenship and kick them out of the country.

I can see some justification for maintaining border settlements that can be easily geographically integrated into Israel (in exchange for a bit of Israeli territory), but look at Ariel on a map! It's location is ridiculous unless you want to prevent a Palestinian state from emerging at all. Maaleh Adumim prejudices negotiations on Jerusalem, essentially trying to establish before negotiations what should be determined during it. There is no sense in arguing that the settlements are simply neighbourhoods that just magically appeared out of nowhere. Many of the inhabitants are religious, but the tax breaks, cheap land deals, cheap water supplies, etc, are evidence that it was a political program from the beginning to make the West Bank Israeli forever. If you want to say it SHOULD be Israeli forever, fine, we've got a whole other argument. But if not, then any settlement that makes a Palestinian state impossible needs to go.

[Stan187]

However, Israelis have no place in the West Bank - they have Israel, why the landgrab?

Palestine SHOULD exist, It's THE ONLY WAY that we'll see peace in the Middle East.

I deplore the way we're not allowed debate Israel's actions maturely though, purely because it's a Jewish state.
Israel treats the Palestinians like dogs, to be pushed around and spat on, and we stand idly by (well I suppose you don't, your country funds the bullets).

LoL, yes blaming the Israel Lobby for everything is the most mature debating is it?

Israelis have full-fledged cities in the West Bank. I'd call that a place.

[Stan187]

Wrong order of events I believe. Israel made segregated highways when the main conflict was between Israel and the PLO outside the territories (aka terrorist attacks by the PLO on airliners etc). The Palestinian population, while no doubt hating Israel, was not in active conflict with Israel in any serious way. Its possible I'm mistaken on that, but if you think so, please provide a source. I'll try to find a source. In the meanwhile, I'd like to see some sources that prove you right as well on the order of events.

Also, I suppose you are somehow going to argue that the Palestinians FORCED Israel to take the lion's share of their water leaving them with almost nothing for their own agriculture?

I don't know why you suppose that, since I never made anything like the above argument.

So for the sake of revenge, you demand that the population exchange has to go both ways, even when there is no need for it? Israeli Arabs have done nothing to deserve expulsion, while Israeli settlers DO cause hardships for Palestinians both through their own actions and by the required IDF presence to protect them.Depends on which settlers. The border settlements that are fully fledged cities do not cause much hardships for the Palestinians. Sure there are some people who have been cut off from plots of land by the security fence, otherwise not really. Israeli Arabs do not contribute to society the same way Jews do, they don't do national service. If they act like its not their country, then maybe it shouldn't be. I'm sure you'll retort with the fact that many ultra-orthodox Jews also don't serve. And I think they should do their duty or get out as well.

I used to share your view of ethnic conflictAs do a lot of political science scholars who have degrees with more letters than mine., and if Israeli Arabs are willing to go for it or be bought out or whatever, fine. But I care about Israel maintaining its democracy, and one thing a democracy doesn't do is strip 20% of its inhabitants of citizenship and kick them out of the country.

I can see some justification for maintaining border settlements that can be easily geographically integrated into Israel (in exchange for a bit of Israeli territory), but look at Ariel on a map! It's location is ridiculous unless you want to prevent a Palestinian state from emerging at all. Maaleh Adumim prejudices negotiations on Jerusalem, essentially trying to establish before negotiations what should be determined during it. There is no sense in arguing that the settlements are simply neighbourhoods that just magically appeared out of nowhere. Many of the inhabitants are religious, but the tax breaks, cheap land deals, cheap water supplies, etc, are evidence that it was a political program from the beginning to make the West Bank Israeli forever. If you want to say it SHOULD be Israeli forever, fine, we've got a whole other argument. But if not, then any settlement that makes a Palestinian state impossible needs to go.I wonder what your definition of making such a state impossible is?

.

[ZFBoxcar]

I'll try to find a source. In the meanwhile, I'd like to see some sources that prove you right as well on the order of events.

I'll try as well, but it isn't easy to find articles about attacks that didn't happen (assuming I'm right).

I know this wouldn't fly in an academic debate, but here's Wikipedia

Between 1969 to September 1970, the PLO, with a passive support from Jordan, fought a war of attrition with Israel. During this time, the PLO launched artillery attacks on the moshavim and kibbutzim of Bet Shean Valley Regional Council as well as attempted to launch attacks by fedayeen on Israeli civilians. These attacks came to an end after the PLO expulsion from Jordan in September 1970.

Further information: Black September in Jordan

After Black September, the PLO and its offshoots waged an international campaign against Israelis. In an attempt to publicize the Palestinian cause, frustrated Palestinian guerrilla groups in Lebanon attacked Israeli "civilian 'targets' like schools, buses and apartment blocks, with occasional attacks abroad—for example, at embassies or airports—and with the hijacking of airliners" (Sela, 97). At the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich, the Palestinian Black September group, a militant faction of the PLO, carried out the Munich massacre, resulting in the deaths of eleven Israeli Olympic athletes. It was among the first Palestinian attacks to become world news. In October 1974, the Arab nations came together at the Arab Summit Conference in Rabat and adopted their own resolution stating that the PLO was "the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people" (Sela, 96). Israel and the United States, on the other hand, refused to recognize the PLO as a legitimate organization in the mid-1970s because of the PLO's stance at the time that Israel did not have the right to exist.

Notable events were the Munich Olympics massacre (1972), the hijacking of several civilian airliners, the Savoy Hotel attack, the Zion Square explosive refrigerator and the Coastal Road massacre. During the 1970s and the early 1980s, Israel suffered attacks from PLO bases in Lebanon, such as the Avivim school bus massacre in 1970 and the Maalot massacre in 1974.

The point is the PLO had no presence in Israeli controlled territory, it was in Jordan, got beaten up by Jordan, it was in Lebanon, got beaten by the Israelis, it was in Tunisia, got bombed by the Israelis. And there was no intifada at the time. It just seems from the fact that the PLO was absent from the territories, plus all the attention focused on their international terror campaign, plus the fact that it says attacks on the West Bank ended after Black September, that Palestinian militancy wasn't a big issue in Israeli controlled territory until the first Intifada.

Depends on which settlers. The border settlements that are fully fledged cities do not cause much hardships for the Palestinians. Sure there are some people who have been cut off from plots of land by the security fence, otherwise not really.

I tend to agree, and if I could have my way those settlements would remain, but I would certainly be open to compensation for the land either in money or corresponding Israeli territory, and we seem to agree on that.

Israeli Arabs do not contribute to society the same way Jews do, they don't do national service. If they act like its not their country, then maybe it shouldn't be.

Israeli Arabs also don't receive from society the same way Jews do. Funding for their communities in terms of social services is much lower. They also face tough restrictions on land ownership. Besides, it is not Israeli Arabs refusing to contribute, it is the state refusing to conscript them. I am not sure what would happen if this changed, but I do know that Israel decided it probably wasn't a good idea to conscript them. However, the Druze and Bedouin men are conscripted just like Jews (although not Druze and Bedouin women).

I'm sure you'll retort with the fact that many ultra-orthodox Jews also don't serve. And I think they should do their duty or get out as well.

Similarly, the state refuses to force them. But that question is academic as Israel would never kick them out...Israeli Arabs might not have the luxury of assuming our discussion is purely academic.

As do a lot of political science scholars who have degrees with more letters than mine.

I know there are, and more letters than mine too. And some are less crude than Samuel Huntington. But there are scholars who disagree with them too. I was trying to think of a way to simply prove the assertion wrong. It isn't easy, as it is quite possible a mono-ethnic state is more stable than a multi-ethnic state. But India, Canada, and the US do it. Hell, Israel does it. The easy, stable way, is not always the best one. I really hope you are wrong because I would rather see Israel disband than commit the unforgivable crime of ethnic cleansing. And I certainly don't want Israel to disband.

I wonder what your definition of making such a state impossible is?

I've attached a map that generally outlines this. Its not very exact given the tools I was using, and a couple of the ovals extend a bit into Israeli territory, which is accidental, not a desire to give up part of Israel proper. ;)

[Stan187]

.

I'll try as well, but it isn't easy to find articles about attacks that didn't happen (assuming I'm right).

I'm confused as to what attacks you refer to as not happening. Common roads in the West Bank were used by Palestinian terrorist to kill Israeli settlers using said roads. That did happen. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.


I tend to agree, and if I could have my way those settlements would remain, but I would certainly be open to compensation for the land either in money or corresponding Israeli territory, and we seem to agree on that.

Strange then that in your map you included a big area fairly close to the green line and contigous with Israeli population patterns in what is to be the Palestinian state. I'm reffering to second and third from the top on the left side


Israeli Arabs also don't receive from society the same way Jews do. Funding for their communities in terms of social services is much lower. They also face tough restrictions on land ownership.

As part of the deal for not fighting against Israel in 1948, Arab villages and towns that cooperated are given a very high degree of independence and ruled mostly by councils of local Arab leaders. They got money from the central government, a lot of it, and have all kinds of options on how they can spend it. When the sheikhs choose to build themselves and some other council members nice houses while the community centers, schools, and even mosques rot, we can see where the problem is. I've visited and talked with people in these communties, they're on quite friendly terms with Jews, at least in the north. The leadership of these communties has a stake in keeping the status quo, the blame the Israeli government in front of their own people while they hoard their corruption money. Interestingly enough, the people here, as a result, hate the Israeli government but not necessarily the people of Israel. Kinda like those European who don't hate Americans but hate the American government.

Besides, it is not Israeli Arabs refusing to contribute, it is the state refusing to conscript them. I am not sure what would happen if this changed, but I do know that Israel decided it probably wasn't a good idea to conscript them. However, the Druze and Bedouin men are conscripted just like Jews (although not Druze and Bedouin women).

Israel wants them to serve, if not in the military, then in national service like religious Jewish women do. It also gets them the same benefits as military service, benefits that they could use, as you yourself have implied. Their leaders are the ones telling them not to serve.

Israel Wants National Service From Arabs - washingtonpost.com

Darwish: Israeli Arabs won't do civil service | Jerusalem Post

Similarly, the state refuses to force them. But that question is academic as Israel would never kick them out...Israeli Arabs might not have the luxury of assuming our discussion is purely academic.



I know there are, and more letters than mine too. And some are less crude than Samuel Huntington. But there are scholars who disagree with them too. I was trying to think of a way to simply prove the assertion wrong. It isn't easy, as it is quite possible a mono-ethnic state is more stable than a multi-ethnic state. But India, Canada, and the US do it.

I'm not talking about Huntington, his theories are more macro-level civilization clash. I'm reffering to Chaim Kaufmann's work, particularly an article he published in International Security some 12 odd years ago titled Possible and Impossible Solutions to Ethnic Civil Wars. It is problematic to compare to India, Canada and the US. All of these countries have stable societies. They have had ethnic conflicts to varying degrees. However, they do not have major violent ethnic conflict going on. And once such conflict starts on a massive and violent scale, the only method that has been shown to consistently work is ethnic separation into separate, defensible enclaves where the cost/incentive to defend is relatively low and cost/incentive to attack is relatively high.

Hell, Israel does it. The easy, stable way, is not always the best one. I really hope you are wrong because I would rather see Israel disband than commit the unforgivable crime of ethnic cleansing. And I certainly don't want Israel to disband.

It depends, though it is called ethnic cleansing nonetheless, I'd definitely have a different opinion if this ethnic cleansing was in the form of population transfer or massacre.

[ZFBoxcar]

I'm confused as to what attacks you refer to as not happening. Common roads in the West Bank were used by Palestinian terrorist to kill Israeli settlers using said roads. That did happen. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

I'm saying that I was under the impression that during the 70s and 80s, the security situation did not merit segregated highways, as far as I know.

Strange then that in your map you included a big area fairly close to the green line and contigous with Israeli population patterns in what is to be the Palestinian state. I'm reffering to second and third from the top on the left side

Perhaps the third from the top on the left side shouldn't have been included, but I stand by my assertion that Ariel (and the whole 2nd from the top on the left) hardly counts as a border settlement.

As part of the deal for not fighting against Israel in 1948, Arab villages and towns that cooperated are given a very high degree of independence and ruled mostly by councils of local Arab leaders. They got money from the central government, a lot of it, and have all kinds of options on how they can spend it.

FOCUS ON ISSUES

According to the Abraham Fund, government funding to Arab and Druse municipalities was less than one-half the funding per person given to Jewish locales in 1994, the latest figures available from the group.

Israel wants them to serve, if not in the military, then in national service like religious Jewish women do. It also gets them the same benefits as military service, benefits that they could use, as you yourself have implied. Their leaders are the ones telling them not to serve.

What I meant is that Israel does not compel Israeli Arabs to serve, and until it does they are not in defiance of anything. And refusing to perform national service for a state that doesn't treat you like an equal is hardly grounds for the state to strip of your citizenship, take away your livelihood, seize your property, and force you to leave at gun point. You might respond that Israeli Arabs have a higher standard of living than Arabs in other countries do, and that is true, but that doesn't make discrimination okay.

I'm reffering to Chaim Kaufmann's work, particularly an article he published in International Security some 12 odd years ago titled Possible and Impossible Solutions to Ethnic Civil Wars.

I think I read it a couple years ago. Well argued, but I find political science to not exactly be well...a science. There is often more than one way to solve a problem.

It is problematic to compare to India, Canada and the US. All of these countries have stable societies.

I would argue that internally (not including the West Bank and Gaza obviously) Israel HAS a relatively stable society. There has never been a coup in Israel, everyone accepts the results of elections, Israeli Arabs have not attempted insurrections, the multi national/ethnic Jewish immigrants from around the world fit in fairly well (although of course there are problems there too), etc.

However, they do not have major violent ethnic conflict going on. And once such conflict starts on a massive and violent scale, the only method that has been shown to consistently work is ethnic separation into separate, defensible enclaves where the cost/incentive to defend is relatively low and cost/incentive to attack is relatively high.

But Israel's conflicts are with outside actors, so that isn't really applicable. Separating Israeli Jews from Israeli Arabs does absolutely nothing towards solving the Israeli Arab conflict because it isn't Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs that are fighting each other.

It depends, though it is called ethnic cleansing nonetheless, I'd definitely have a different opinion if this ethnic cleansing was in the form of population transfer or massacre.

Certainly transfer is less bad than massacre, but its still a terrible solution unless voluntary. It is still, as I described earlier: the state stripping you of your citizenship, taking away your livelihood, seizing your property, and forcing you to leave at gun point and arresting or killing you if you refuse to leave your home. Jews have been expelled from European countries countless times. Sure, its not as bad as the Holocaust, but we still consider this to have been barbaric, brutal, and criminal behaviour, as well we should.

[Stan187]

.

I'm saying that I was under the impression that during the 70s and 80s, the security situation did not merit segregated highways, as far as I know.

They were built later. For example, the road leading out of Maaleh Adumim was built with the onset of the intifada, because Palestinians kept shooting the cars on the previous shared road running by Abu Dis.

Perhaps the third from the top on the left side shouldn't have been included, but I stand by my assertion that Ariel (and the whole 2nd from the top on the left) hardly counts as a border settlement.

Agreeing to disagree then.


FOCUS ON ISSUES



Throwing more money at 'em when internal corruption is such a big problem isn't such a simple and good solution.

What I meant is that Israel does not compel Israeli Arabs to serve, and until it does they are not in defiance of anything. And refusing to perform national service for a state that doesn't treat you like an equal is hardly grounds for the state to strip of your citizenship, take away your livelihood, seize your property, and force you to leave at gun point. You might respond that Israeli Arabs have a higher standard of living than Arabs in other countries do, and that is true, but that doesn't make discrimination okay.

Until they start participating in society of the state that has given them such a high standard of living as compared to their neighbors, why do they deserve the same treatment as regular contributing members of society. Keep in mind, same goes, in my opinion, for jobless ultra-religious deadbeats.

I think I read it a couple years ago. Well argued, but I find political science to not exactly be well...a science. There is often more than one way to solve a problem.

That's pretty insulting actually. There is often more than one way to solve a problem. And in this case, there is nothing showing that other suggested solutions will work, the track record for various suggestions being quite poor through repeated examples. This is not the one solution any more than democracy is the ultimate type of government. But it has by far been shown to be the best that there is.

I would argue that internally (not including the West Bank and Gaza obviously) Israel HAS a relatively stable society. There has never been a coup in Israel, everyone accepts the results of elections, Israeli Arabs have not attempted insurrections, the multi national/ethnic Jewish immigrants from around the world fit in fairly well (although of course there are problems there too), etc.



But Israel's conflicts are with outside actors, so that isn't really applicable. Separating Israeli Jews from Israeli Arabs does absolutely nothing towards solving the Israeli Arab conflict because it isn't Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs that are fighting each other.

It sure as hell is applicable. Proximity matters. No matter how hostile the Iranians are, they are far away. The Palestinians, for example, have a lower cost for committing violent action, less effort that they have to put in to get such a thing done. Security is rooted in the protected enclaves, and in making sure than a population is not overwhelmed. Even if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is settled, if a large minority of Arabs remain, problems will spark up, you can count on it. There is no trust between the two communities, and it is arguable whether a common trust and society can be built or not. If Arabs are so disenchanted with Israel, then by all means join your Arab bretheren under Fatah rule or whatnot, no?

Certainly transfer is less bad than massacre, but its still a terrible solution unless voluntary. It is still, as I described earlier: the state stripping you of your citizenship, taking away your livelihood, seizing your property, and forcing you to leave at gun point and arresting or killing you if you refuse to leave your home. Jews have been expelled from European countries countless times. Sure, its not as bad as the Holocaust, but we still consider this to have been barbaric, brutal, and criminal behaviour, as well we should.

That's why there's been talk from Lieberman about the territorial exchange, so that no moving has to take place. Citizenship, however, is another matter.

[zeus920]

if u r really thinking that way ... so why do u blame terrorists for terrorism ... and why do u stand against weapons of mass destruction when u suggest using them against innocent people .... why do u think that all Palestinians are Hamas ?? all what they want is to leave in peace ... to find food wich they can eat .. to find home where they can live ... but i think that all what u want is to see merkavas killing children .. ( ! )