What is the fairest solution to the Palestinian question?

Biffa Bacon

Option A:
The state of Israel is destroyed and an independent Palestine is established in its place, incorporating Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. Israelis will be allowed remain in the country only if the Palestinians do not object to their presence. This outcome can be seen simply as righting a historical wrong, i.e. the foundation of the state of Israel and the theft of Arab land. This is the view of extremist Palestinian groups such as Hamas (I think).

Option B:
Israel annexes the West Bank and Gaza and allows its people to colonise it. This solution can be justified according to a worldview whereby the Palestinians are not a distinct nation, merely Arabs who happen to live in the geographical location known as Palestine. When you compare how huge the Arab world is compared to Israel, it is only fair that the most persecuted race in history should be entitled to this relatively small piece of land. Far-right groups in Israel would take this view.

Option C:
The pre-1967 borders of Israel are recognised and a Palestinian state is set up in the West Bank and Gaza. However, there are conditions attached whereby Israel is allowed to control some areas for security purposes, some existing Jewish settlements can remain and the Palestinians cannot have their capital in East Jerusalem. No Palestinian refugees are entitled to return to Israel unless the Israeli government allows them to do so. This, I think, is the negotiating stance of the current Israeli government.

Option
The pre-1967 borders of Israel are recognised and a Palestinian state is set up in the entire West Bank and Gaza, without any of the conditions described above. Some or all of the Palestinians who are refugees from Israel proper are allowed to return. This is pretty much what is proposed in the latest Saudi peace offer.

Option E:
A new state is established incorporating Israel, the West Bank and Gaza where sovereignty is shared between Jews and Arabs. The Golan Heights are returned to Syria. Constitutional arrangements ensure that consent is required from both communities before any policy can be implemented. All Palestinian refugees are given the right to return as are all Jews “returning” from abroad, and Jewish settlements are permitted to be established anywhere in the country. This strikes me as being the fairest outcome.

Keeks

Option F: Giant earthquake occurs causing the whole aera to sink in to the sea.

But seriously, unless both sides can actully agree to talk to each other there will never be peace. These ppl are more stubberon the Rev. Ian Paisley!

JustHalf

What about this option?

State of Palestine formed. Israel returns all troops to within the internationally recognised borders. The Palestinians don't support suicide-bombers, have children trained to hate all Jews and stop sticking these children in front of gunmen in Operation Human Shield. The Israelis don't go mental with their gunships and tanks.

handyandy

I think option D is the closest to my thinking. Both parties are entitled to land, work, peace and security (in no particular order). The availing of these should not be at the expense of others.

I think that substantially the pre-1967 borders should be used. There are a few very small areas where both sides seem to agree there should be a 'no-mans' (or both-mans) land along the border as there are some very irregular shapes in places. [side note] This is much like the Cavan / Fermanagh border where the Cavan-Clones road crosses the border 4 times - there is an enclave 5 km x 3km with only 150m connected tot the rest of Cavan (and in theory the Gardaí / army can only access part of the Republic by crossing an unbridged river).[/side note]

I think that instead of supporting the Israeli military, the US should pay lots of unemployed Palestinians to built settlements for Jews / Israelis in Israel and for Palestinians in Palestine (keeps everyone but the arms manufacturers happy).

And let there be arms control / demilitarisation in the region - by all parties (keeps everyone but the arms manufacturers happy).

I think the Golan / Sheeba Farms issue is separate to the West Bank / Gaza Issue.

DadaKopf

There's no point a quick fix solution. Option E is the only tenable solution. But not for the forseeable future.

Manach

I went for Option C:
It isn't fair to the Palestinians but it would probably placate the right-wing Israeli paranoids, who to be truthful have much to be paranoid about.

blondi

if the Palestinians win , the jews will whinge about it for the next 50 years as they've whinged about the holocaust and their 6 million dead for the past 50yrs.
60 million poor souls died during that period (including 2 of my uncles, burned alive as their bombers went down over germany) not 6 million.
I resent them for hijacking that tragedy as their own and think they have a sick sense of moral superiority by making excuses for treating the Palestinians like sh*te, and saying they are protecting their 'jewish state'
They have experienced the worst history can deal them, and learned NOTHING....

Gargoyle

Originally posted by blondi
if the Palestinians win , the jews will whinge about it for the next 50 years as they've whinged about the holocaust and their 6 million dead for the past 50yrs.
<snip>

Hate jews much? Try to make it a little less obvious next time.

blondi

that's a cheap shot , thank you very much...
how many relatives did you lose...?

bonkey

Keep it civil guys.

jc

blondi

yes, let's keep it civil.
On reflection I can understand why my remarks could be misconstrude as 'Anti-Semetic' but I am in COMPLETE DESPAIR at what the Israelies are doing over there, especially after what the jews have experienced through history.
I would have thought they would have been champions of ensuring that kind of persecution would never happen again as opposed to soiling on their own doorstep with cruel acts of persecution and discrimination
The smell of blood carries very far.

Clintons Cat

option e would at first glance seem the fairest <except for it makes provision for israelis to establish settlements carte blanc without making a similar provision for palestinians>
I am guessing that the Israelis would insist on the Israeli court system to oversee the new constitution.
however the israeli courts have never been particullarilly even handed in deceiding land issues.
the "he'eratz" site and "jews against house demolitions" brings home just how unevenhanded the whole situation is.
For instance long before sheron was demolishing houses with bulldozers in the war against terrorism, Palestinian arabs were finding their houses violated planning regulations or lacked planning permission (in some cases the houses had been there for generations).in some cases families were given an hours notice to gather their possesions and depart.

quote to follow

I would go with d.

DadaKopf

Couple of things I saw in today's Guardian:

In a Suzanne Goldenberg article, Humiliating surrender for Palestinian police, she said:

In many instances, the raids have focused on the Palestinian police, who are entitled to bear arms under the Oslo peace accords, and who are Yasser Arafat's main instrument for the ceasefire Israel and the US are demanding.

[...]

But in Ramallah at least, the focus appears to be the main Palestinian police agency: the national security force, whose commander in the West Bank, Haji Ismail, is one of Yasser Arafat's most trusted aides.

Acts like these suggest to me that the Israeli army/politicians are deliberately trying to diminish Arafat's ability to control terrorists or dissidents which which he's not really able to control anyway.

The soldiers are also making use of civilians as shields, forcing men to march ahead of them at gunpoint as they shoot their way into suspected hideouts of armed Palestinians.

Here's America trying to attack Iraq, who used the same tactic (and the Taliban?), while their bosom-buddy is doing the same thing! The tactics are getting lower and lower.

Mr Ismail's [head of the Palestinian police] men are the most professional of the Palestinian police forces - which were trained by the CIA during the 1990s

This just rocks!

Sharkey

Originally posted by blondi
that's a cheap shot , thank you very much...
how many relatives did you lose...?

Actually, it's a damn good shot.

And I'll never know exactly how many of my kin were slaughtered.

Sharkey

Originally posted by blondi

On reflection I can understand why my remarks could be misconstrude as 'Anti-Semetic' but I am in COMPLETE DESPAIR at what the Israelies are doing over there, especially after what the jews have experienced through history.

FYI, I've been to Israel. I've seen events occur and seen your pathetic excuse of a press lie and distort about the events that took place.

Yet, some here have called me naive and claimed that I was not informed about the facts.

Israeli soldiers don't get to pick the time and place where they must stop such actions as Palestinians attacking Jewish passers-by or the occasional rock-throwing fest. Palestinian parents encourage their children to throw rocks at Jews KNOWING that this puts their children in jepardy. These same children are also taught from birth to hate Jews -- even their textbooks are littered with propaganda and blood-libel.

Yet, your press seems to only show images of a child rushed to a hospital, rather that those events that led up to the child's injuries. If you want someone to blame, blame the parents, who used their children for propaganda purposes.

For what its worth, check these sites:
http://www.epinions.com/news-review-52DF-1B63CDF3-39E02C37-prod3


http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp441.htm

blondi

I checked out the link you submitted and agree that the AP are far from immune to letting the truth stand in the way of a good story, but I also understand, that in Israeli society today exists a REAL crisis of conscience regarding successive governments continued reference to the holocaust to justify 'policy decisions'
Many Israelies (I'm informed) feel a sense of guilt that this is happenning, and even make accusations that some faculties within the government are turning the holocaust into an industry ?
I have also seen a doc. on u.k channell 4 called 'battle for the holocaust' which touched on this area ?

can anyone who knows, tell me if any of the above is true ?

despite my opening remarks on this thread, I would like to see a sober and sensible solution to the issue , and nothing that even slightly resembles a 'final solution'

dathi1

Israeli soldiers don't get to pick the time and place where they must stop such actions as Palestinians attacking Jewish passers-by or the occasional rock-throwing fest. Palestinian parents encourage their children to throw rocks at Jews KNOWING that this puts their children in jepardy. These same children are also taught from birth to hate Jews -- even their textbooks are littered with propaganda and blood-libel.

Land Grabbing, Land stealing, Illegal settlements, Illegaly occupation since 1968 under UN mandate some number, etc.... what do you expect? harsh language?

Sharkey

Originally posted by dathi1
Land Grabbing, Land stealing, Illegal settlements, Illegaly occupation since 1968 under UN mandate some number, etc.... what do you expect? harsh language?

Land grabbing? I think that it had something to do with the Arab ATTACKS on Israel by all of its neighbors that prompted Israel to occupy areas such as the West Bank, which has great military value.

Egypt, who made peace with Israel, has received those territories lost in the '67 battle.

As to what the UN says -- screw the UN. The UN has consistently demonstrated anti-Israeli policies in the last 30 years. Israel has the right to defend itself and for those who still lie awake at night riddled with angst at the mere fact that Israel still exists -- tough.

By the way, the Palestinean charter (until just a few years ago) contained languaged that they were to be dedicated to the annialiation of Israel -- in defiance of the UN. Afafat still professes that charter verbally. So I might ask you -- why should Israel cowtow to the UN's wishes when no Arab state will abide by the UN's charters?

bonkey

Originally posted by Sharkey
Land grabbing? I think that it had something to do with the Arab ATTACKS on Israel by all of its neighbors that prompted Israel to occupy areas such as the West Bank, which has great military value.

Exactly what attacks were these?

By the way, the Palestinean charter (until just a few years ago) contained languaged that they were to be dedicated to the annialiation of Israel -- in defiance of the UN. Afafat still professes that charter verbally. So I might ask you -- why should Israel cowtow to the UN's wishes when no Arab state will abide by the UN's charters?

How do you go from Palestine being in violation to "no arab state"? Also - you are basically arguing that the Palestinians are wrong, because they are in violation of UN treaties, but that this means that Israel is right to be inviolation of the UN treaties.

Either condemn both, or accept both, but dont use the wrongness of one to imply the rightness of the other.

jc

Sharkey

Originally posted by bonkey


Exactly what attacks were these?

In case you forgot, Israel was attacked by the Arabs in 1948.

Then there were the Egyption-sponsored Fedayeen raids in the early fifties.

Further, During the early months of 1966, Israel's neighbors escalated activities against her. More and more Israeli civilians were killed in the Syrian and Jordanian borders. The Syrians, from atop the Golan Heights, shelled Israeli towns indiscriminately. On May 15, 1967, Egyptian forces moved into the Sinai. On May 18, Egypt expelled the U.N. Peacekeeping forces from Israel's borders. On the 22nd, the Egyptians closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. On the 25th, encouraged by Egypt - Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia moved their troops to Israel's borders. Two days later, on the 26th of May, President Nasser of Egypt declared, "Our basic goal is the destruction of Israel."

How do you go from Palestine being in violation to "no arab state"? Also - you are basically arguing that the Palestinians are wrong, because they are in violation of UN treaties, but that this means that Israel is right to be inviolation of the UN treaties.

You mischaracterize alot of what I say. Bad start.

As to your statement: "How do you go from Palestine being in violation to "no arab state" What the frell are you talking about?

As to Israel being in violation of any U.N. treaty, I never said that Israel was in violation of any treaty. UN charters, dictates, mandates and their other drivel are not treaties.

The Jews accepted the 1947 partitioning of Palestine (75% of which was desert), however, since then the Arabs have repeatedly violated the 1947 charter. Israel fought for decades just to survive against the Arabs, the Arabs violating the UN charter.

As to any land captured during the 1967 war, there's no treaties there, simply land captured as a result of armed conflict.

As to subsequent treaties between Israel and Egypt, Israel has honored them.

As to treaties b/t Israel and the Palestinians, the Palestinians have yet to honor anything. I therefore say that Israel cannot be bound by any treaty that the Palestineans never kept or intended to keep. Those big-bad Israelis, they just won't just be bombed and murdered nice and quiet-like.

Sharkey

Originally posted by bonkey


Either condemn both, or accept both, but dont use the wrongness of one to imply the rightness of the other.

jc

Perhaps while I am at it, I should condemn the Brits for violating those treaties with the Germans, after Germany invaded France. After all, Chamberlain had negotiated peace/non-aggression with Hitler.

Stalin should also be condemned for using armed forces against the Germans. I mean -- just because Germany broke a treaty or two and invaded the USSR isn't sufficient reason to actually kill Germans and break their stuff.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sharkey

As to your statement: "How do you go from Palestine being in violation to "no arab state" What the frell are you talking about?

Allow me to add italics to your original comment to make it stand out :

By the way, the Palestinean charter (until just a few years ago) contained languaged that they were to be dedicated to the annialiation of Israel -- in defiance of the UN. Afafat still professes that charter verbally. So I might ask you -- why should Israel cowtow to the UN's wishes when no Arab state will abide by the UN's charters?

So - I ask again. How do you go from Palestine being in defiance (or violation) of the UN, to "no Arab State" abiding by the UN charters.

As to Israel being in violation of any U.N. treaty, I never said that Israel was in violation of any treaty. UN charters, dictates, mandates and their other drivel are not treaties.

I see - but the "drivel" would also include the stuff which Palestine above is in violation of?

Israel fought for decades just to survive against the Arabs, the Arabs violating the UN charter.

As to any land captured during the 1967 war, there's no treaties there, simply land captured as a result of armed conflict.

As to subsequent treaties between Israel and Egypt, Israel has honored them.

As to treaties b/t Israel and the Palestinians, the Palestinians have yet to honor anything. I therefore say that Israel cannot be bound by any treaty that the Palestineans never kept or intended to keep. Those big-bad Israelis, they just won't just be bombed and murdered nice and quiet-like.

If we were to adpot the same approach in the North of Ireland after the last ceasefire, then we would have British Military tearing up Nationalist neighbourhoods using gunships and tanks to oust the terrorists who continued their acts in violation of the Good Friday Agreement.

Are you telling me that this is a better approach than the path of peace? You are advocating the correctness of the Israelis in taking extreme military action in preference to making a start a peace - a start which is not thrown out the window as soon as any problems arise.

jc