Israel: what is the REALISTIC solution?

[Abufijli]

Originally Posted by ArabJew

When exactly did Egypt re-conquer Sinai peninsula? oh, right, we agreed to return it to the last centimeter to egypt as part of the peace agreements. interesting.

There are a couple of things wrong with this view you have here.

1. having Egypt sidelined from the Arab-Israeli conflict is actually worth giving land for because of Egypts strong influence over the Arab world, without Egypt, the Arab world can not fight, so Israel used this to its advantage and removed this powerful country from the equation.

2. Egypt did fight for its land, 67, 73......

On the other hand you have a weak and divided people in Palestine, Israel exploited this to grab more land.

You leaving Palestine is a certainty, trust me on this keep those bags packed, your flight will leave soon.

there are two very wrong things with the arab peace initiative:
(A) it is a saudi creation/initiative, not a palestinian one. in particular hamas does not support it and will not accept it. the saudis are promising something they simply cannot deliver. they know it, we know it.
(B) but "just to be on the safe side", syria sabotaged it, with changes to the 'right of return' clauses and tying it with the golan heights issue.
the ambiguity of this clause is the root of all evil, so to speak. someone is playing a cruel game on palestinian refugees, leading them to what will be eventually a civil war which would make the lebanese one pale in comparison. that's not the way to guarantee them a safe and happy life after all the abuse they've taken, from israel and arab countries alike.

now is not a good time to discuss these things, try to keep that in mind though when things calm down.

Mumbo jumbo.... The Arab peace initiative is not the point here, the point is Israel refused to discuss it, if it was really serious about peace it would have called Saudi Arabia and the rest of the arab world on this issue, but it did not because it is not interested in a just solution.

Bags packed?

[ArabJew]

Originally Posted by Abufijli

There are a couple of things wrong with this view you have here.

1. having Egypt sidelined from the Arab-Israeli conflict is actually worth giving land for because of Egypts strong influence over the Arab world, without Egypt, the Arab world can not fight, so Israel used this to its advantage and removed this powerful country from the equation.

weren't you guys just a few threads ago mocking the absolute weakness of egypt? os now it's almighty when it's convinient, and dismally weak when otherwise convinient? make up your minds...

Originally Posted by Abufijli

2. Egypt did fight for its land, 67, 73......

actually, egypt fought for palestine in 1967, and for its land lost in 1967, in 1973. none did it any real good...

Originally Posted by Abufijli

On the other hand you have a weak and divided people in Palestine, Israel exploited this to grab more land.

You leaving Palestine is a certainty, trust me on this keep those bags packed, your flight will leave soon.

now this is interesting. my family never leaved the middle east for eons. we've survived much worse threats. what makes you think you'll be the one able to push us out?
it's also interesting how you threaten to push us out, and in the same breath solicit peace out of us. funny.

Originally Posted by Abufijli

Mumbo jumbo.... The Arab peace initiative is not the point here, the point is Israel refused to discuss it, if it was really serious about peace it would have called Saudi Arabia and the rest of the arab world on this issue, but it did not because it is not interested in a just solution.

Bags packed?

hardly mumbo jumbo. offers for faux peace we can get for nothing, as well as offers to commit suicide or pack our bags.

my bags are safely stowed in the closet, and nothing you can say or do will change that. we were here for eons, and for eons more we will remain.

[ArabJew]

Originally Posted by elias-aj

If you oppose the two state solution, what are you supporting then ? A non-jewish and secular state where all citizens are equal and have the same rights and duties ? A state where an Arab Jew or an Arab Muslim or an Arab Christian can be President or Prime Minister ? If it is what you're supporting, good then. Because this is what I think the best solution (two state solution seems to me not really a viable solution).

If not, I don't understand how you're supporting a peace settlement.

I don't claim to be an oracle, and my suggestion is still work in progress. to sum up the line of thought, it is a confederacy of several groups, each with rights to manage their own domain of control. a member of an ethnic group living in any of the member states/areas, can apply to lead his/her own domain of control. ofcourse, this needs more details.
in lebanon, no sunni or shiite can become the president, but it is nonetheless a democracy. it's just not a successful one, and one has to make sure that the woes that befell the lebanese confessionalism will not happen to the israeli/palestinian project, because the results will be disasterous to everybody around. granted, some of those reasons are external to the lebanese themselves, but nonetheless troubling when one wants to try this again.

Originally Posted by elias-aj

PS : Don't bother with the various possible ideologies because it's just speculating for the sake of speculating. Replace the current jewish state with a secular state. Implement a good and fair socio-economic policy. You'll see then that with peace, we'll be able to build something like the E.U. in the middle-east.

i'm afraid not. I mean, it's good to dream, but a country needs something that bonds its people together. the mere existence of people in the same territorial area is hardly enough, in particular considering scores of years of hatred. compare with the balkans and the lebanese civil war.

[Abufijli]

Originally Posted by ArabJew

weren't you guys just a few threads ago mocking the absolute weakness of egypt? os now it's almighty when it's convinient, and dismally weak when otherwise convinient? make up your minds...

Egypt is strong if it had the proper leadership capable of making brave decisions, Mubarak is Israel's loyal lap dog, this is why it is weak today, not for any other reason.

actually, egypt fought for palestine in 1967, and for its land lost in 1967, in 1973. none did it any real good...



now this is interesting. my family never leaved the middle east for eons. we've survived much worse threats. what makes you think you'll be the one able to push us out?
it's also interesting how you threaten to push us out, and in the same breath solicit peace out of us. funny.

I do not want tpeace with Israel, never have wanted it never will want it, I am peaceful towards Jewsih civilians who choose to live in Palestine as equal citizens with the Palestinains, otherwise YOU ARE LEAVING, you will see this day, I assure you, so make sure the bage are packed if you want to live in Israel not Palestine.

hardly mumbo jumbo. offers for faux peace we can get for nothing, as well as offers to commit suicide or pack our bags.

If the illegal entity called Israel wanted peace it would not be bombin g its neighbours every few years.

my bags are safely stowed in the closet, and nothing you can say or do will change that. we were here for eons, and for eons more we will remain.

Something we have done and will do again will make you pack those bags, just wait, why are you in such a hurry, patience....

[loubnaniTO]

Originally Posted by mehdi soldier

there would be a decisive war that will change the face of the middle east.or there would be important wars that would gradually send "israel" to the mortuary.

dont look at it as farfetched to see the resistance fighters not only withstanding the zionist war machine but pushing them all the way into palestine and engaging them and holding unto lands in palestine.that could be gradual until the resistance eliminate the enemy or it could be all in one decisive war.

i think it would be easier for it to happen in one decisive war.in that way "israel" wouldnt stand the chance of regaining from outisde world pressure or influence.before they thinking of standing up again,in the blink of an eye,the resistance flag would be raised in tel aviv.

for the fact that the resistance movements are not taking this step,its because they are doing their calculations right.when they are competent enough,that will happen.and guess what,that time could be in any future war between the lebanese resistance and the zionist state.the resistance fighters will not only march upon the enemy in south lebanon,but they will pursue them and defeat all the way in the enemy's spider web.

MS, don't get me wrong, I really don't like Israel... but if we want to be realistic, the Resistance's power is in "resisting". I.e. if Israel tries to enter Gaza or South Lebanon, resistance in both regions have shown a lot of muscle. On the other hand though, Israel has a military supremacy that cannot be matched by any force in the region (or all of them combined). Although for example HA defeated Israel in 2006, but let's analyze this defeat. They defeated Israel just because the war's objective was to eliminate HA and they failed. But on the other hand, they were able to inflict serious damage and casualties to Lebanon. they're doing the same in Gaza.
Any war by any regional army or resistance will not ELIMINATE israel, in one shot or gradually, cause if Israel feels it is seriously threatened, i think they will make sure there is nothing left standing around it, and no one left standing to resist. Remember, they WILL use nuclear weapons if they have to, and just like the world remains silent now, they will remain silent. Even if theyre not silent, Israel doesnt care, they're existence is at stake.

[Abou Sandal]

Originally Posted by ArabJew

I don't claim to be an oracle, and my suggestion is still work in progress. to sum up the line of thought, it is a confederacy of several groups, each with rights to manage their own domain of control. a member of an ethnic group living in any of the member states/areas, can apply to lead his/her own domain of control.

Why don't you just cut the cr*p for once?

Basically what you're proposing, is to create a state (confederal..yeah right), where the Jews will prevail and enjoy an unshared power,and have control over the whole territory,and Arabs would only be scattered all over little tiny pockets in tribes.

But hey...those Arab tribes will still have the right to chose their king.How lucky they are!

Here is the same solution but in reverse Genius:

The Palestinians shall have full control over the state and policy of this so-called confederacy,and shall rule over all the territory,and shall enjoy power unshared with the Jews,who would be disseminated in tribes,12 to be more specific,and all over the territory,and will be able to enjoy some relative autonomy,by having the right to elect the chief of their respective tribe.And don't worry,we'll manage to respect their basic human needs and rights...As much as possible..And as long as they do not trespass on other's domains of control.Fair enough?

You know what?

Enough BS...If i were you,I'd take Abufijli's advise more seriously and i'd really consider to start packing.

[mehdi soldier]

Originally Posted by loubnaniTO

MS, don't get me wrong, I really don't like Israel... but if we want to be realistic, the Resistance's power is in "resisting". I.e. if Israel tries to enter Gaza or South Lebanon, resistance in both regions have shown a lot of muscle.

well from simply knowledge from football coaching,players are told that the best form of defense is attack.for the fact that groups like hezballah or hamas are resistance movements and they are meant to defend their countries by resisting doesnt mean they cant resist by attacking the enemy or pushing them all the way back into their backyard and if possible into the sea as the popular cliche goes.

On the other hand though, Israel has a military supremacy that cannot be matched by any force in the region (or all of them combined). Although for example HA defeated Israel in 2006, but let's analyze this defeat. They defeated Israel just because the war's objective was to eliminate HA and they failed. But on the other hand, they were able to inflict serious damage and casualties to Lebanon. they're doing the same in Gaza.

i beg to differ."israel" in 2006 had objectives that were achievable.they wanted to create a 20km buffer zone in south lebanon,free the two captured soldiers,disarm hezballah,etc.if you simply say they failed to eliminate hezballah,naturally that sounds too cheap a victory for the resistance.its close to impossible for anyone to eliminate a movement."israel" can be eliminated but zionism cant be eliminated.zionism is a movement or an ideology fixed in the minds of people who believe in it.zionism was before "israel" and will remain even after "israel" is eliminated.the only difference that is if or when "israel" is eliminated the zionist movement wont have a place in the middle east again.it will have to exist in exile.zionism in the middle east will become outlawed as nazism in germany and apartheid in south africa/

"israel" failed in achieving all of its objectiveS in july 2006.that is no coincidence or simply because hezballah outlived the war.its because hezballah stood its ground on the battlefield and taught the zionist soldiers lessons never to make an adventure into lebanon.it was a hard fought and a hard won war for the resistance in lebanon.hezballah didnt won that war simply because it continues to exist or was not eliminated.

Any war by any regional army or resistance will not ELIMINATE israel, in one shot or gradually, cause if Israel feels it is seriously threatened, i think they will make sure there is nothing left standing around it, and no one left standing to resist. Remember, they WILL use nuclear weapons if they have to, and just like the world remains silent now, they will remain silent. Even if theyre not silent, Israel doesnt care, they're existence is at stake.

i think the nuclear weapons "israel" have (if any) are as good as the knives in my kitchen.if they eventually use that weapon they will commit suicide which i guess is against the doctrines of judaism.the weapons they are threatening others with is as much of a threat to them.they should also be scared of those weapons.it will be like a fart.both the one who farted and the one standind close will smell it.

resistance will eliminate "israel".i think the best way for those nuclear weapons,if they exist in "israel",is for "israel" to ship them to the usa when they feel their end is near.nuclear weapons cant guarantee the survival of "israel".nuclear weapons if used by "israel" will eliminate "israel" and the arabs will remain and they will take over palestine again even in ashes as the arabs are more.so simply,nuclear weapons are no guarantee for "israel" and if used,it will be suicidal for the zionists in all ways.

[Abou Sandal]

Originally Posted by mehdi soldier

the weapons they are threatening others with is as much of a threat to them.they should also be scared of those weapons.it will be like a fart.both the one who farted and the one standind close will smell it.

Couldn't you pick a better imagery/illustration?

[mehdi soldier]

Originally Posted by Abou Sandal

Couldn't you pick a better imagery/illustration?

excuse my limitation.but that analogy perfectly conveys the idea behind it since everyone have done that action and felt the pain himself.

[JOlsson]

Originally Posted by ArabJew

i strongly oppose a two state solution - it will solve nothing and only serve to create one or more non-viable states. this calculation includes variations of 'safe passage' between the strip and the bank. a palestinian state in the west bank and gaza even if linked is not a viable solution to the refugee problem. it simply cannot hold them, even under the ludicrous assumption that the world will invest scores of billions of dollars and monitor that they do get invested properly.

Without going into the minute details of a two-state solution, the other options I can broadly think of are:

1) One democratic state for all.
2) Sectarian/ethnic/religious system like Lebanon,
3) Jordan to incorporate most the West Bank and Egypt to incorporate all of Gaza.

I think it is safe to say the option 1 is the most unrealistic solution simply because it would defeat the purpose of Israel as the homeland for Jews and that there has been too much blood lost already and it would most likely end up in a bloody civil war faster that I could finish this sentence.

Option 2 for pretty much the same reasons as option 1. From a stand point of democracy, it would be a large step backwards and eventually the largest ethnic/religious group would call and actively work for its abandonment for the sake of 'democracy'. The sectarian system would only work if the ethnic/religious divide is roughly equal where no group consisting of more than 50% of the population.

Option 3 I think is, from a pragmatic point of view, the most viable option out of the three because it was more or less a reality for 20 years until the 67 war and the PLO only officially adopted the notion of an independent Arab Palestinian state until the early 70s.

A two-state solution has been accepted by representative of the Arab Palestinians, most of the Arab world, Israel, and the international community as the path to walk. Obviously, the viability of such solution is possible, otherwise it wouldn't be tabled and broadly accepted as the way to go forward. I agree that there could be a problem of viability if the Arab Palestinian side is too small and scattered, but is an issue that would be resolved if the commitment to make it a viable state was there. I.e. Israel would have probably have to relinquish most of the West Bank if it meant an Arab Palestinian state would be viable.

The issue of refugees I see could be addressed along what the Clinton administration suggested. All refugees would decide on:
1) Become citizen of the country they're currently residing
2) Move to a newly created Arab Palestinian state, or
3) Relocate to Israel.

Obviously, there would be a quota system that all concerned parties would have to agree upon. It would mean, for example, that Lebanon, and other states, would have to accept a portion of the refugees and make them full citizens and Israel would have to accept the a portion of the refugees and make them full Israeli citizens. The new Arab Palestinian state would have to accept the remaining refugees.

to see why this will never work, consider this: what form will palestine take? what will be its ideology, that bonds it together? how will that ideology contain peace agreement with opposition to israel, either nationalistic or islamic?

I'm not quite sure where you're going with this, but I believe there is already a constitution for an Arab Palestinian state drawn up by the PLO that is secular in its nature. I'm not entirely convinced that Hamas agrees with that, though.

what form will israel take? what will be its ideology, that bonds it together? how will that ideology contain peace agreement with opposition to israel, either nationalistic or islamic?

I can't see Israel being anything different from what it is now.

(on our behalf, i can guarantee that at most 3% of israelis harbor expansionist dreams, btw, the entire left-right axis here revolves around palestinian territories. please cut that 'nile to furat' bs out of this discussion)

Where did I refer to that "'nile' to 'furat' bs"??? The expansionist dreams I referred to is the Israelis who believe that West Bank Palestinians should go to Jordan and Judea and Samaria belongs to Israel. Which I consider to be no different from those who calls for the destruction of Israel.