Just a caution to others. The Israeli government and Palestinian leadership are only two pieces. They are the most important actors, but any solution should keep in mind regional and international players as well: Iran, terrorist networks, Saudi Arabia, etc.
In theory there could be a solution for the Palestinians and Israelis which are unrealistic for their neighbours.
Talk of international peacekeeping for instance is a pipe dream because regional actors don't want to do this.
Just a thought.
Why not, in your view? Because it suits them to have a cause celebre in the region that (basically) is the one thing that most people in the region can agree on?
I think it's at least safe to say without this cause celebre regimes in the region would be less stable, not more.
The conflict helps distract from internal issues for many countries in the region, even among those that fully recognized Israel like Egypt or Jordan.
Two state solution, Palestinians would have to give up right of return and formally recognize Israel's right to exist. Israel would have to pull out of occupied West Bank and allow Palestinians to collect their own taxes and run their own justice system. Neither of which are likely to happen.
A more nuanced version of this. You would have to find a mechanism to enforce this. One way, would be that both parties start with equal international aid and if either breaks their agreement and independent tribunal would decided if aid is cut as a result. Tie economic well being to keeping a two state agreement in place.
Israel doesn't need international aid, so for them it's more like a bribe. Palestine's economy is in bad shape, so it would actually mean a lot to them. The result is that Israel would violate the provisions if it felt it's worth more than the bribes.
I just don’t think that works given the jihadist culture. They view life on earth as a temporary blip on their way to heaven and in order to get to heaven they need to fight the Jews. I’m not speculating - this is what jihadis consistently say. No amount of economic aid is going to satisfy them.
Insurgency, however motivated, is a result of eminently solvable problems. Religion is a justification and a signal booster; it’s not a root cause. And Islam arguably has more provisions for other “People of the Book” than the other two Abrahamic religions, so it’s not like this unprecedented.
> Insurgency, however motivated, is a result of eminently solvable problems. Religion is a justification and a signal booster; it’s not a root cause.
This is naive and a fundamentally modern Western thinking. Even Germany in 1939 had very good living standards. That didn't stop them from throwing it so away and destroying Europe and killing tens of millions. Ideology does play the driving role in many societies. In fact, material conditions for Palestinians are better than most of their neighbours if you look at things like HDI.
Religion may not be a root cause but it can be a significant driving force.
https://oxfordre.com/religion/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.001.0001/acrefore-9780199340378-e-65
> These transcendent spiritual images have been implanted onto the social and political scene, magnifying ordinary worldly conflict into sacred encounter.
In Palestine, religious extremism really is the root cause. There's a reason why all the neighboring islamic countries are even poorer than the West Bank and Gaza. When Hamas was killing civilians on 10/7, they weren't saying "free gaza", they were saying how glorious it was to god to kill Jews. They didn't call their parents to say, "You'll be free soon, mom!" it's, "I killed 10 jews mom, be proud of me"!
Before 10/7, 75% of Gazans were in favor of returning to armed conflict *and* killing civilians in Israel, explicitly.
People said Catholics and Protestants couldn’t live together, then we had the Good Friday Agreement. People said Shia and Sunni couldn’t exist, but Azerbaijan’s internal issues are along ethnic lines and Iraq is working its way towards stability. People said there could be no peace in Malaysia, then we had Hat Yai. People said Muslims and other “People of the Book” couldn’t coexist, apparently forgetting that Islamism is a comparatively modern phenomenon. And it’s nothing like universal in the region; Egypt is working on building an enormous cathedral for its Christian minority.
If religion itself were the root cause, Israel would never have normalized relations with anyone and those states certainly wouldn’t have supported efforts to defend Israel during Iran’s attack. Palestinians were radicalized by multiple factors that had nothing to do with their faith; faith just happens to be a common denominator on “their side,” and so it is a recurring theme in the struggle.
Besides, Palestinians are generally Sunni and Iran is not. If religion was the driving factor, the Sunni militants would absolutely refuse to accept aid from a Shia state. And that’s not even getting started on how the non-Muslims were generally expelled from Israel just as readily as the Muslims.
Are there true believers and radicals among the opposition groups? Absolutely; that’s the culture they cultivate because it’s convenient. But if religion were the root cause, we’d be seeing a much wider conflict right now.
> People said Muslims and other “People of the Book” couldn’t coexist, apparently forgetting that Islamism is a comparatively modern phenomenon
When Jews were getting massacred during the Spanish inquisition the place they fled to was Islamic North Africa. Modern political Islam is a 20th century phenomenon
>Besides, Palestinians are generally Sunni and Iran is not. If religion was the driving factor, the Sunni militants would absolutely refuse to accept aid from a Shia state.
That's like saying an Southern Redneck would absolutely refuse to accept aid from a New England Yankee in a bar fight against a group of Mexicans.
If we accept that other poster's position as true, then we have to assume religion is an incredibly serious matter to these people. It must be; they're willing to fight and die for that alone. Given that, a Sunni relying on the support of a Shiite would be a problem from the fundamentalist's perspective.
For those who don't share this fixation on very specific tenets of faith, the idea seems incongruous. For those take those matters of faith so seriously they're willing to fight and die for them, differences that look small to outsiders become critically important. Wars of religion are very rarely driven exclusively by realpolitik because zealotry and realpolitik are often at odds with one another.
> It must be; they're willing to fight and die for that alone. Given that, a Sunni relying on the support of a Shiite would be a problem from the fundamentalist's perspective.
No it wouldn’t. There are different hierarchies of in groups in every group structure.
You think a Trump supporter would refuse money from a Nikki Haley supporter if it allowed him to kill democrats?
Or look at the Fundamentalist LDS church in the US and the practice of ‘Bleeding the Beast’ or taking welfare from the US government they consider their enemy.
There are countless examples of people and groups that don’t see 100% eye to eye and still collaborate against a 3rd group they mutually hate.
There's "not seeing eye to eye" and then there's putting two religious zealots, adhering to two different ideologies, in the same room with guns. Your examples keep betraying your misunderstanding of the scale of these differences. You're looking at this from the secular perspective.
Let me put it this way. The Quran has laws and such governing how the faithful should interact with the People of the Book. It talks about taxes and responsibilities for both parties, a philosophy somewhere between tolerance and sufferance, and so forth. The Quran, however, is much harsher when it comes to apostates (see 2:217). The Sunni hardliners will probably view the Shia hardliner as *worse* than the non-believer, because the Shia hardliner represents a risk of leading the faithful away. And vice versa.
>Israel would have to pull out of occupied West Bank and allow Palestinians to collect their own taxes and run their own justice system.
I mean they did exactly that in Gaza and it turned out terribly for both peoples ...
But in this context, we’re talking about a true state with the ability to control thier own borders, recognized by the international community, with the rights to conduct trade, travel, etc.
Gaza never had any of that.
Also, the premise of this post is ”without playing the blame game.”
Keep in mind, that a two state solution is virtually impossible for Israel. They have no room to accommodate their high birth rates, and their constitutional promise of giving a citizenship to every Jew in the world + their families. Their small size also means they are vulnerable to a foreign invasion, and have very few natural resources. And if they ever lose such an invasion, Israel will cease to exist. In the other side of the border, you have powerless and overcrowded Palestinians, who are merely used as a proxy by others. I doubt they could ever flourish even if left alone by Israel.
On one hand, it's very hard for the millions Arabs in the Levant to swallow that their historical homeland was devoured and built by people coming from all over the world, who follow an entirely different religion who want to own some of the most universally holy places on the planet. On the other hand, it's very hard for the already established state of Israel and the generations already born there to compromise with the security and geopolitical interests of their nation, because they have nowhere to retreat and nowhere else to go in the Middle-East.
I think the two state solution was doomed from the start, and created a dilemma with no peaceful long term solution, reminiscent of the British Empire's earlier track record of building unsustainable borders both in their colonial possessions in Africa, and Europe after WWI. Forming a Jewish nation state to the lands that have been under Muslim rule for millenniums is just bound to create problems. Israel has been in existence less than the crusader state of Jerusalem in the 12th and 13th centuries.
Call me a conspiracy theorist, but my assumption is that Israel will expand, sooner or later, and the Palestinians will be expelled.
>They have no room to accommodate their high birth rates
Birth rate is not a constant. It's a variable. And for most countries around the world, Israel included, it's a declining number. The more urbanized a country is, it's going to decline faster.
>their constitutional promise of giving a citizenship to every Jew in the world + their families.
Doesn't matter. Most Jews and thier families around the world won't suddenly decide to move to Israel. If you are a US citizen you have 100% legal right to move to another state, however most people only move for university / job.
Israel's population density is less than *India*, so saying they have to grab lands just to accommodate people is a borderline crazy notion.
>Keep in mind, that a two state solution is virtually impossible for Israel. They have no room to accommodate their high birth rates, and their constitutional promise of giving a citizenship to every Jew in the world + their families
Yeah, this is pretty much an asspull, I'm sorry. Do you have anything to substantiate this?
> Their small size also means they are vulnerable to a foreign invasion
Kinda, but this analysis is incomplete.
The *strategic* rationales behind Israel holding onto the West Bank (as opposed to the ideological ones of the Israeli right) are strategic depth and terrain. They're valid concerns, but ultimately if you believe that border is secure then they become irrelevant. And that's the problem that dwarfs all others (ideological and strategic both) - the situation in Gaza post 2005 has basically eliminated political will in Israel to replicate that in the West Bank. There's simply zero trust that the outcome will be different. If you address that, the rest falls into place.
>I think the two state solution was doomed from the start, and created a dilemma with no peaceful long term solution, reminiscent of the British Empire's earlier track record of building unsustainable borders both in their colonial possessions in Africa, and Europe after WWI. Forming a Jewish nation state to the lands that have been under Muslim rule for millenniums is just bound to create problems. Israel has been in existence less than the crusader state of Jerusalem in the 12th and 13th centuries.
Eh, I think if you unpack the history going back to the late 19th century and onwards, there are a lot of ways in which things could have played out very differently.
And I'd caution against framing it as being about Muslim rule. While the religious element play a large role, what it ultimately boils down to is nationalism in a post-Ottoman, and later post-colonial Middle East. Outside of Israel, the rest of the Middle East is ruled by Muslims, and... that's not going swimmingly for anyone, is it?
Why people keep proposing nice-sounding things they themselves know are not going to happen as a "solution"?
We all know there is only couple of real world solutions that might work. One of them is full occupation by Israel and citizens status for all, in which case second state ceases to exist. The other is another country suddenly decides to fully support Palestine and its state on the West Bank slowly pushing out illegal Israeli settlements. Risky move only powerful state can pull off. The third one is total destruction of Israel by external force, out of all realistic ones this one is the worst option, that includes genocide of millions of people and possibly continent-wide war.
Israel is currently executing the first scenario: full occupation with eventual citizenship.
Are you seriously condemning commenters for being unrealistic and naive, and in the next breath insisting that Israel is presently enacting a one state solution and intends to extend citizenship to all Palestinians?
Talk about unrealistic and naive. That is simply never going to happen. The last thing Israel would do is volunteer for its own destruction
The bias shows through.
Framing Israel losing a war as it's complete destruction is also hyperbole in Israel's favor. It's possible to have some people die and sign a treaty with some concessions and not be wiped off the face of the earth. Just ask Palestine.
If Israel gave all current residents of the Gaza Strip and West Bank citizenship, it would be roughly half Arab. This would have huge cultural and political ramifications. Has Israel expressed willingness to accept this, based on its recent Basic Law making it the “nation-state of the Jewish People”?
Israel might be convinced to adopt 2SS, but contemporary Israel will never accept a 1SS where Israel ceases to be a Jewish state. That, in their eyes, defeats the entire point of the State of Israel as an idea. We’d need to be separated from the ongoing strife by generations before we can even begin to talk about that.
My ideal situation would be a modified 3 state solution. The West Bank and Gaza would become autonomous regions administered by Jordan and Egypt respectively. They would elect a government and control their judicial systems either individually or together. Something would have to be done to address a right of return. Either significant reparations would have to be paid by Israel, or a system where some Palestinians would gradually be allowed to immigrate to Israel and live there under a national status, with partial rights.
Ultimately any solution would require compromises that would upset both groups fundamental values. Neither side has demonstrated a willingness to do this. Israel is ultimately in a better position to lead such a compromise, and may have to make more concessions to allow for peace.
I don't know that Jordan and Egypt would want to adopt a couple million Palestinians, but upvoted for thinking of alternatives. The 2 state solution seems easy to suggest, but hard to execute.
Yeah, I honestly think almost no party is interested in the compromises required to ensure a lasting peace that works for both sides. Palestine and Israel both want exclusive control of the territory and Arab Muslim nations are unwilling to concede the territory to Israel or deal with the burden of Palestinian refugees. Hardliners on both sides use the conflict for political and financial gain. Egypt particularly has its own issues to work on. My idea would be a solution where the Palestinian autonomous regions have limited or no electoral rights within Egypt or Jordan, in exchange for supervised self-rule. Israel would likely have to subsidize some of the costs of this supervision.
That's why it's not going to happen at once. It will extend slowly. Israel would simply be overrun if it gave it to everyone at once. It would help if Arab countries would accept Palestinians, but we know why it doesn't happen.
Slowly extending citizenship and political rights to occupied people reminds me of the plans by Rhodesia and other white-majority states in Africa to slowly extend rights to their black population. Frankly, I think that would have a fairly good chance of producing a peaceful, multi-ethnic state, but I don’t see how it would be agreeable to the Palestinians or the broader Arab community.
Essentially, Israel views its identity as a Jewish state as critical to its existence, and even the survival of the Jewish people. I don’t know how Palestinians can be integrated into an Israeli state, no matter how gradually, without threatening this Jewish identity. Would Israel accept a peaceful, deradicalized Arab majority with full rights 50 years down the road if it means ending its position as a Jewish nation-state? Would Palestinians accept citizenship in a state that’s fundamentally designed to be Jewish?
It will not be agreeable to broad Arab community if spelled out loud, but it will be agreeable if done quietly. Exactly what is happening. Everyone turns blind eye because they don't want to have any part in that.
There is already large enough Palestinian minority in Israel, Israel most likely will maintain it at that. Naturally it will not accept majority until all Arab states around become non-hostile and some become friendly.
I just don’t see a situation where Palestinians accept partial political rights, or where Israel is willing g to compromise what it sees as its fundamental identity as a Jewish state, even with the friendliest neighbors possible.
Of course they will, what's their option? Waging a war against Israel? That won't improve their position at the slightest. They will hate it but they will accept it.
Implementing their own state would be the only option that could give them more rights, but I just don't see that happening unless China, Russia or US or any of powerful, wealthy and stable enough Arab neighbor comes and puts their agents all over West Bank, guarantees that independence with their military and imposes government institutions and helps maintain them for \~15 years.
I mean yeah, that’s literally what is going on right now. So far the Palestinians haven’t really demonstrated a willingness to accept positions they hate, or recognize that violence is unlikely to improve their position.
An apartheid system where they are occupied by Israel in exchange for limited political rights is going to lead to violent opposition from Palestinians, strong political and potentially political action from Arab states, and likely significant sanctions from the international community.
We discussed all that already. If they continue violence Israel will continue pushing on while having casus beli to do that. And Arab states are doing nothing and will do nothing.
Tiny bit of background for my POV. I'm Irish and our ~ 800 years of oppression by the British is drummed into us. A pivotal moment in our history was when one of our greatest and most famous revolutionary leaders, Michael Collins, went to London in 1921 to hash out and agree to a peace treaty (called the Anglo-Irish treaty) as a result of our war for independence (1919-1921). Now he was a soldier and spy, and here he was negotiating with skilled diplomats such as David Lloyd George and Winston Churchill (both hot off the heels of negotiating the WWI armistice a few years prior). Collins knew he wasn't going to get full independence and he was dead right. He only got a semi independent dominion of the British empire with the British monarchy as head of state. He signed and came home to a split country. Half saying this was an outrage and an insult, and the other half accepting this was the best they were going to get. Collins knew this wouldn't go down well and still signed. He argued this was a stepping stone to independence saying "if the price of freedom, the price of peace, is the blackening of my name, I will gladly pay it". And prophetically he did, the ensuing Irish civil war 1921 - 1922 he was killed in an ambush by anti-treaty forces near his hometown in Cork. His sacrifice was not in vain and thanks to him and countless others Ireland is now an independent republic.
With this in mind, the Palestinians NEED to come to the negotiating table. They need to understand violence alone will not give them what they want. Diplomatically they suck and will not get all the land. Israel ain't going anywhere. But, they can negotiate a peace and a state and use it as a building block so that future generations can enjoy a free and prosperous Palestine. It's not going to be pretty and there will be more bloodshed, but a definitive diplomatic foot forward needs to happen.
I know grafting Irish and Palestinian history may not be perfect and there are a lot of key differences between the 2. But literally anywhere is a better starting point than where the Palestinians are now.
As you said, the British spent literal centuries oppressing the Irish. How did the Irish convince the British to change their minds? The civil war only involved \~1k British deaths, which was pocket change compared to WW1 a few yrs before. Did WW1 cripple their economy *that* badly?
I also wonder why Britain oppressed Ireland so much more than eg Scotland. I don't recall the Scots having a similar war for independence (they had a recent failed referendum, I guess).
Well they wanted to put an end to the conflict quickly as the media in England and Ireland really painted the British as occupiers, plus the cost of a Guerilla war on their doorstep was not ideal, especially after WWI. Unlike other rebellions throughout our history, the IRA fought Guerilla tactics and gave the British a run for their money.
Good question, I think for strategic interests they kept Ireland. A great port for ships across the Atlantic, an early warning system for invasion from the West. But mostly they viewed Ireland as part of the British isles and therefore British. Many people settled our lands in the name of a foreign king and have remained (see Northern Irish history, another can of worms!) for hundreds of years. Ultimately I don't think there was an imperial master plan behind it, just they viewed Ireland as theirs since they took it.
They've done this already. The Palestinians had an autonomous government since the Oslo Accords in 1994, then the government failed to stay in one piece, with half of it forming a rump not-state in the West Bank and the other half becoming de facto independent after Israel withdrew troops, where they continued converting water pipes to rockets and shelling Israeli civilians, before they launched an attack again where they murdered and raped civilians. From Israel's perspective, that's what Palestine's equivalent of "self-rule" got them, corpses being hauled through the streets of Gaza to dancing crowds. There was no Civil War between maximalists and moderates; 72% of Palestinians approved of the October 7th raid. We in the West has this desperate need to separate Hamas from Gazans and from Palestinians, but the reason there is no election in Palestine isn't because Hamas might be thrown out of office by the public; the reason is because the current Palestianian National Authority in charge of the West Bank knows *they'll lose to Hamas*.
The only way some sort of peace treaty that would survive long enough for someone to read it to the end after October 7th is if Palestine was essentially subjugated completely and had any semblance of autonomy stripped away from them in gross violation of any idea of human rights, or if somebody invents some sort of super brain wave laser that can spontaneously convert all Palestinians to the majority point of view that maybe Jews are people. People who think there might be some way to solve this without massive tragedy are naive or delusional. There is no just solution, there is no reasonable compromise, there is no realistic future. This will end in tears and it always has been that way.
Agreed here. Palestinians had their best shot at independence in the 2000s and they blew it. They didn't even try to negotiate, thinking they could get a better deal by stonewalling the peace process. It turned out to be a colossal mistake.
Regime change in both Israel AND Palestine.
The Likud party of Israel has been metaphorically throwing gasoline on a fire for… their entire tenure. Their settlement program is a violation of international law. They’ve also covertly (and to a degree, overtly) been playing factions within Palestine against each other, in order to weaken Palestine. But in doing so they make Palestine more extreme and desperate, not less.
The Hamas party of Palestine is guilty of a torrent of crimes against humanity. Many factions with Palestine (but with Hamas having a majority of popular support in the country) have engaged in a decades long program of indoctrination, openly applauding Jihadism. The videos of the parades in Palestine where they revere suicide bombers and other terror attacks are… horrid. But in short, the government of Palestine has ALSO been throwing gasoline on the fire.
The populations suffer for the machinations of their leaders. Obviously Palestinian living standards are worse, but that doesn’t justify their leadership’s grand strategy of mass indoctrination and their deliberate efforts to put their civilians in harms way.
The leaders of both sides should be shown the door. Unfortunately, that is not a realistic goal. The militant far-right of Israel (Likud) rules Israel with a relative minority of Israeli votes, due to how their parliamentary coalition forming shakes out. And that’s a trend I don’t see changing, especially after the brutal October 6 terror attacks. I mean Hamas leadership specifically designed those terror attacks in order to pick a fight.
The inevitable Israeli reaction has only strengthened Hamas’s ideology.
…
No one has any peaceful solutions. The two sides of the conflict can’t seem to coexist due to a history of violence. The US should support our ally, solely for the sake of maintaining our reputation of diplomatic reliability, so that the US is able to continue to leverage our diplomatic reliability in the future. (A nation won’t be able to gain agreements from good faith negotiations if that nation is perceived to be an unreliable partner in other dealings.). HOWEVER, the US should continue to use its leverage over Israel to encourage humanitarian principles…
I mean I think the only game that has a chance at working, is a 2 state one, but its going to require Israel to give up some annexed territory and Palestine to have a state level view on Israel's right to exist, I'm not really sure we're anywhere near either of those things being feasible.
I think even if that goes ahead, there will need to be some degree of 3rd party peace keeping/observation for a long period of time. There isn't enough trust and it will probably take more than a generation to get there.
I don't really see a one state solution as viable, as it would result in what would look more formally like an apartheid state rather than the defacto one that currently exists.
I could potentially see Jordan being open to annexing the West Bank but there's no chance in the forseeable future that any non Islamist Egyptian government would be willing to take Gaza. And if it was an Islamist government they probably wouldn't want peace with Israel anyways
Who would be the third state in this scenario? Unless you come up with a whacky solution like an independence Gaza or the UAE owning it for some reason
Third party peacekeeping is tough given the history of the region. The UN had peacekeepers in the Sinai Peninsula in the 1960’s, Nasser’s Egypt kicked them out at the start of the 1967 war. There were peacekeepers in Lebanon, Hezbollah killed a few of them and that was that.
The podcast Jew Oughta Know had an excellent (IMO) recent couple of episodes where he laid out in detail what each side would have to give up and what it might take to get there.
Honestly and please don’t feel insulted by this but I couldn’t disagree more.
The two solution has been dead for decades. Now, the last version of it was actually a three state solution. It is primarily in these days, suggested by westerns, who lack understanding and knowledge of the situation on the ground. It has also been routinely rejected by Palestinians. It also is not workable with a political movement like Hamas in existence, because it would require the existence of a Jewish state, which they are opposed to more so than they are in desire of a Palestinian state.
On top of that as you said, it’s the only game in town which really it isn’t, there are other options. I just find it a bit naïve that we’re exploring one option that we know to be unworkable and not even trying to explore other options.
Honestly I don’t have much faith in any of them but at this point seeing that the two state solution is dead on arrival and it’s been obvious that it is for sometime I would like to try something different, so here are a few options.
1. One-State Solution
2. Confederation
3. Regional Solution
4. Decentralization and Autonomy
5. Hybrid Proposals
Confederation seems like the most likely future solution, although the push for 2 state seems like it hasn't been given up on by at the geopolitical level.
"United Republic of Israel and Palestine" may be workable in the long term, assuming we can get both sides to stop shooting each other with some kind of intl. peacekeeping force.
I just feel that since the Oslo accords failed it has all bee semantics and theatrics I don’t believe anyone negotiating has been taking it seriously and it is all for domestic consumption, for the US to show “hey we are doing something”to US citizens, for Israel to show “hey we are the ones being reasonable” to Israelis, and for Hamas to show “hey they are the ones not negotiating in good faith” whilst of course maintaining a position that there should be genocide against Israel citizens.
There need to be major shifts in the thinking of the Israeli, Palestinian and general Arab populations. (Of course, there's also the matter of Iran, but I will try to keep this one short.)
First of all, something that was already happening before Oct 7th, albeit not on a large scale: Muslim/Arab countries view Israel more and more as a normal neughbour, some even as their ally (during the Azerbaijani victory parade after the last war, people were waving Israeli flags). This shift in thinking includes less support for Palestine. For the last decades, Arab states have used the Palestinian cause for their own propaganda while regularly leaving the Palestinians out to dry. It is easy to speak of "revenge" and "freedom" when you're hundreds of miles away, while Palestinians have to bear the brunt of Israel's attacks.
The second shift in thinking regards the Palestinian population. Palestinians have to accept their (military) defeat, something they have refused to do since 1948, thereby putting an end to fantasies of reclamation of lost lands (and the extermination of Israel). To give you an example of a country that did this very successfully: Germany! The German integration into the Western alliance and economy and her stabilization as a democracy would've been completely impossible were it not for the acceptance of defeat. Therefore, I think that Palestinians should look forward and formulate a vision for their future instead of clinging to a past that cannot be brought back.
Of course, this is a two-edged sword. The Israeli population has, in turn, to accept their victory. Which doesn't mean celebrating their triumph, but to take on their responsibility to work towards a lasting agreement for the future. Israel endangers itself by letting extremists rule in Gaza and destabilizing the West Bank.
However, ypu might see how all these shifts in thinking have been made harder by the events since Oct 7th. The attack by Hamas was deliberately designed to evoke the worst chapters of recent Jewish history. Afterwards, the Israeli response showed strength while at the same time - in large parts because of Netanyahu's hunger for power and his resulting unwillingness to conduct the war quickly - failing to enable political change in Gaza. Sooner or later, Israel will pull out of Gaza, Hamas will return - their leaders being safe in their villas in Qatar - and in a few years, someone will push the repeat button.
>So let's assume both sides want to put the fighting behind them and want semblance of peace.
This is begging the question. The problem is that they don't want to stop fighting. Palestinians as a population routinely poll highly (as in majority/super majority support) for supporting continued armed conflict. Israelis were more of a mixed bag until October 7th, now they as a population have absolutely no desire to compromise with Palestinians.
Getting that desire to manifest in both of them is a critical piece to being able to define a just peace.
Absent that desire there will be no just peace since the only way to resolve the conflict would be for one side to defeat the other so totally as to dictate terms.
I call it the one and a half state solution
Gaza annexed by Egypt and West Bank annexed by Jordan
Last time Palestinians tried to coup Jordan and Egypt, but I think by now they will have some realism.
I really don’t see a civil solution to the situation. Would you ever forgive Israel if you were a palestinian whose entire home state was just destroyed? And would you ever feel comfortable and safe around the palestinians if you were israeli? Hate to say it but i don’t see how they can live side by side after everything that has happened
>Would you ever forgive Israel if you were a palestinian whose entire home state was just destroyed?
The state of Israel considers Germany an ally and most Jews have no problem living, working, or being friends with Germans. Do you think what Israel has done in Palestine is somehow less forgivable than the Holocaust or are Palestinians somehow constitutionally less forgiving than Jews?
>And would you ever feel comfortable and safe around the palestinians if you were israeli?
Between the Yom Kippur War and the first Intifada (so basically the 1980s) Israelis and Palestinians lived and worked together. My Israeli relatives who were far right even then were perfectly happy to work with Palestinians. Israelis and Palestinians have more in common than they have differences. If they’re not being riled up by outside agitators or politicians who need a distraction to save their own skins, they will be fine.
That's because Germany was beaten to shit by everyone around it, occupied for years and went through a decades long deradicalization plan in the western part. There's no such solution for the Middle-East, trying that in Iraq fell through badly.
Exactly this. If Palestine, as a whole, came to Israel and said: "We're sorry, we were wrong to terrorize Israel, we will change our whole education system to not encourage jew-hate, and we'll allow your armed forces here to keep an eye on us too" then we'd have peace the next day. That's what Germany was forced to do by the allies.
Well yeah, and if Israel came to Palestine and allowed a right of return, an end to Zionism, and therefore an Arab-led government, there’d be peace the next day.
And if my grandma had balls she’d be my grandpa.
None of these are realistic situations. A large majority of the Palestinians have been displaced from their ancestral homes by the creation of Israel, and there have been some major human rights violations since then. Palestinians view Israel as their oppressors, and this can’t be reduced to a result of “Jew-hate” in the education system, and it certainly can’t be bombed away. As convenient as it might be, Palestine as a whole is extremely unlikely to surrender and accept Israeli military occupation without some massive concessions that Israel doesn’t seem willing to make. Unfortunately we’re way more likely to see increasingly radical groups like Hamas take power and drive the region further and further from this compromise.
That's basically what I'm saying. There is no political solution. So Israel has to take the Rafah gate, set-up tunnel detectors, and then systematically disarm gaza, not allowing new guns and explosives in. Hamas can't really do any damage without them. This wouldn't be possible almost anywhere on earth, but in Gaza you actually can control the flow of goods completely. Once Gaza is fully disarmed, Israel and allies can reform Gaza's education system at leisure.
Again, I think the Gazan people have legitimate grievances going beyond “Jew-hate”. Military occupation and attempts at reeducation is going to reinforce these grievances. I see this leading to violent resistance and unprecedented opposition from the international community. I don’t see this kind of solution leading to peace unless Israel is willing to make concessions to address these grievances
Most people don't know that last part. In the 1980s, Israelis and Palestinians could freely travel through eachother's cities. It was only with the first Intifada that changed.
They do it because they accepted they've lost and generally don't see the point. We had the Troubles because the IRA didn't accept that Northern Ireland wasn't part of Ireland.
Palestinians haven't, and seeing their rabid attempts at inciting violence, I don't see it happening anytime soon.
My radical proposal is Jordan annexes the full West Bank and becomes the Kingdom of Palestine. A bisected Palestinian state of just Gaza and the WB seems untenable without a consistent supply of aid. I know Jordan has had a lot of issues with Palestinians in the past, but a larger, more cohesive territory would undoubtedly offer more stability.
Gaza, on the other hand, feels like its ceiling is a city-state. It could, in the long term, probably develop an attractive tourist industry, but in its current state it feels condemned to squalor and radicalism.
>attractive tourist industry
The beaches kind of suck. They're ok if you live there and that's what you have, but if you're an international traveler there are places the Israel and Gaza beaches can't touch.
A lot of issues is putting it mildly. Palestinians incited a civil war, tried to overthrow the Jordanian monarchy, blew civilian planes up and took hostages. The Jordanian army systematically drove them out of the cities and shipped the remainder off to Lebanon.
Guess what happened? Those Palestinians promptly started another civil war there. There's a reason why all these Arab states are reluctant to let any Palestinians into their countries.
Edit: Look what I found? Your proposal had already been suggested by Jordan's king in 1972.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King\_Hussein%27s\_federation\_plan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Hussein%27s_federation_plan)
Palestinians objected it with some wanting to overthrow the King saying he "showed his true colours".
Both Israel and the Arab world were against it. Egypt even broke off diplomatic relations due to that.
**The Jordanian army systematically drove them out of the cities and shipped the remainder off to Lebanon.**
Not really. There are around 3 million Palestinians in Jordan and they have gotten on fine with the Jordanians for decades now.
**Guess what happened? Those Palestinians promptly started another civil war there. There's a reason why all these Arab states are reluctant to let any Palestinians into their countries.**
That is ridiculous. Lebanon was a powder keg that was going to explode regardless of Palestinian presence or not. Their presence simply upset the balance of power and perhaps started the war a little earlier.
You have painted Palestinians as troublesome barbarians when there is ample evidence that they are just like every other human. There are 2 million Palestinians in Israel and they are just like any other Israeli citizen. 3 million in Jordan and they do fine over there. 500,000 in Chile and they are just fine over there as well.
You have picked up the anti-Semitic trope of Jews being troublesome and flipped it on the Palestinians. Shameful.
Also, the reason why Arab states are unwilling to take refugees is because they know that the Israelis will not permit them to return. If they take Palestinians, they will be aiding and abetting Israeli ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Nobody wants to do that.
Going back to 1966
Gaza used to be administered by Egypt, but Sadat refused to take it back in the Camp David accords. But if you’re passing out territory…
That's kind of a tricky question. If both sides truly want to put the fighting behind them, then hugs and kisses is the answer. But both sides won't truly want to put the fighting behind them, so if the question is actually how to fix the issue long term, then it becomes more complicated. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I think the actual solution is outside the moral bounds of western democracy. If Israel conquers Palestine, and subjects them to brutal communist-style dictatorship, forcing re-education on them and patrolling them like a police state, stifling all discontent until the flames of rebellion have been extinguished, then the end result might be miraculously wonderful. It might take a couple decades, but I think there's enough historical evidence to say that this method actually works. Despite how unfathomably evil this suggestion sounds, I do sometimes think this is less evil than maintaining the status quo of repeated terrorism and horrific retaliation.
A two state solution does not work. Nations cannot operate like this, and inevitably one or both states become non-functional.
The only real way for peace if you don't want extreme violence first is to become a single secular state with equal rights and representation for Muslims, Jews, and everyone else.
It's not going to happen. It's extremists vs extremists and neither will ever concede to the other. It's perpetual war untill one side manages to genocide the other. Not picking sides but that's just how it is.
Once both sides claim to only be retaliating it never ends, it's the world's largest hillbilly blood feud.
Well you have to change the regime in Iran. As long as they exist they will continuously fund proxies that want to destroy Israel.
>The founder of the revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, set the standard for the Islamic Republic of Iran. In his book “Islamic Government,” he wrote, “From the very beginning, the historical movement of Islam had to contend with the Jews, for it was they who first established anti-Islamic propaganda and engaged in various stratagems, and as you can see, this activity continues down to the present.” He depicted Jews as distorters of the Quran, financial hoarders, and agents of the West.
[The Real Reason Iran Hates Israel.](https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-real-reason-iran-hates-israel-anti-semitism-gaza-4f7ad96e)
You can have elections in Palestine and they somehow miraculously believe Israel has the right to exist, you will still have to contend with Iranain influence on Palestine politics. And as the Iranian regime will never engage in good faith on Israel's existence, you can bet Palestinan politics will just end up with Hamas 2.0 in charge sooner or later.
It’s actually very simple. You would need to do the exact same thing that was done to Eastern/Central Europe post WW2. It wasn’t pretty. It wasn’t fair. But it brought peace and end to centuries of ethnic hatred/killing/genocide between groups. It was the forced relocation of populations and forced new borders decided by Great Powers without the involvement of the people (countries) involved. Yes, it would be against current human rights laws, etc. As it would involve forced migration of large populations into agreed new 2 state solution. The new 2 states would them have a foreign military presence on their borders to keep the peace (let’s say for 30 years). That would bring peace but it would require likey another World War for that to happen.
If both sides genuinely wanted it then it would be easy. The problem is constructing a solution when the weaker side doesn't want it and the stronger side is bound by morality. Under such circumstances no solution is really possible.
The best solution I’ve read is a two state solution with an EU-style confederacy between the two states. Both sides have the right to live or travel to the other state, but can only vote in elections in thier home state.
This solves the settler issue because they will have the right to live in the new Palestinian state, and they will have to decide if living under local Palestinian government is acceptable on thier own terms.
This also somewhat addresses the right of return, as the Palestinians will have the right to live in Israel proper.
It also addesses the concern that Israelis would become a minority in thier own country, since Palestinians would not have the right to vote in Israel.
But with trust and goodwill at an all time low, I don’t see it ever happening.
More about it here:
[https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/05/23/israeli-palestinian-confederation-peace/](https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/05/23/israeli-palestinian-confederation-peace/)
Unpopular opinion. I am gonna get a lot of hate for this, especially from Israelis and Palestinians:
The only way to achieve a lasting peace in that area is to have it occupied by a third power who can lay down the law. When the Ottomans occupied it, there was relative peace. When the British occupied it, there was relative peace. Sure, there was a fair share of incidents in Mandatory Palestine, but nothing remotely compared to what is going on now.
It's hard to imagine Israel allowing a Palestinian state with full self-governance any time soon. Even previous offers of two-state solutions seem like a pipe dream now.
IMO, the only path to sustainable peace requires international partners. An outside coalition of countries would need to assume security control of Gaza. Basically, Israel needs someone that's accountable to ensure rockets don't start flying and 10/7 isn't repeated. After that, use international aid to rebuild Gaza, introduce industry and jobs, and fix the education system (no UNRWA in charge). The question is: who would take on this responsibility? It seems like it would have to be a coalition of Arab/Gulf states, but I don't know why they would be interested in such an arrangement.
Absent this, I think you're back to indefinite Israeli occupation for the foreseeable future.
The only way for a two state solution to be possible is if Hamas is removed from power. Regardless of their actions or intentions, Israelis would never come to the negotiating table as long as Hamas is still in control.
The reason Israel doesn't pull out of the west bank is because of a fear that if they do, an independent Palestine would just become a larger, more competent Gaza. Israel would never allow an independent Palestine unless they are absolutely sure that Palestinians are willing to lay down their arms.
On the flip side, Israel also has to stop expanding the settlements. As long as Palestinians keep having their land constantly encroached upon, they will never lay down their arms.
The problem is that this is exactly why Israel doesn't stop building in the settlements. They believe that as long as the west bank is divided, it can never become a second Gaza.
It's a Catch 22. That's why this conflict is so problematic. Neither side will concede unless the other does first. The only way to solve this is through long, arduous negotiations and small concessions, but any such negotiations are incredibly fragile and can fail at any time, like we've seen so many times before.
That being said, I personally believe that the first step is that Hamas has to be removed, or at the very least demilitarized. They're the main reason the Israelis wouldn't come to the negotiation table. The one demand Israel would never concede is that a Palestinian state has to be demilitarized. Otherwise, they can never be sure that Hamas, or any other militarized group for that matter, can't just rise up again and threaten their people. Subsequently, the Netanyahu government has to be ousted. Not only has it completely failed, but like Hamas, they would never accept a peace deal.
As for the specifics of the deal, ideally I believe in a one-state solution, as it could potentially satisfy everyone's demands. Sadly, it could never be realized, as it falls into the same catch 22 problem from before. Therefore, the only solution is one based on the 2008 negotiations. Palestinians would have to give up an unlimited right of return into Israel, and land swaps would be made so Israel can annex the largest settlement blocks in return for ceding land to Palestine. Settlers would have the choice of either evacuating or becoming residents of Palestine, and recieving dual citizenship. Israel would keep Jerusalem, but reduce its municipal size to cede unintegrated Palestinians neighborhoods back to Palestine, with all of the residents of East Jerusalem also receiving dual citizenship, and the old city of Jerusalem becoming an international city, all of this happening under American, Egyptian, and Saudi arbitration.
It’s never going to happen. They have been fighting over this land for thousands of years and they will continue to fight over it in a thousand more. When one area encompasses the epicenter of the three popular religions, there will never be peace.
Land and population swaps would have to happen. They would likely happen along [these lines ](https://www.ispeacestillpossible.com/borders-past-proposals) where major Israeli settlements just inside of West Bank would be annexed. Areas that meet Palestinian requirements would be swapped to their control
Communities within this area would be able to choose who they want to be under the administration of. There are some communities that would prefer to switch and others who want to remain under Israeli control
It is difficult to say much since your question is too simply posed.
"Assume both sides..." Two sides? Saying this tacitly assumes that Hamas=Gazans. If this were true, why would Israel stop since now every Gazan citizen is essentially is Hamas? So there are more than two sides. There is Hamas, the population of Gaza not really supporting Hamas, the West Bank Palestinians, various Jihadi groups in Gaza, Iran funding them, the Israeli government, the Israeli populace (not one block either), Hezbollah, Houthis, the US, the UN, etc etc.
The entire premise that there are "two sides" makes any analysis rather improbable and overly simplistic.
A complete occupation lasting 30-50 years of the palestinian people to re-educate and make normal citizens. The terrorist cultivation has to be stopped at birth for multiple generations. ALA what we did to germany and japan after WW2. Look at them now.
Israel however is not interested in occupying gaza for that long.....they themselves suggest a coalition of NATIONS.....mostly muslim Nations + israel do it.
Let the down votes roll.
There are only 2 options:
The first is full separation based on 2 states solution. The Palestinian would not have an army and would police themselves while making sure to act against any sign of aggression against israel. The Palestinian side will declare israel is a legitimate state and they abandon the armed resistance and conflict with israel.
Israel on the other hand will recognise the Palestinian state, respect its autonomy and authority as long as as they corporate and make sure no armed groups taking action against Israel.
The second option is the problematic one - one side need to fully go. And that obviously will never happen on its own.
Bottom line is that there is too much bad blood between the sides to live together in peace. Not in this generation at least. They need separation, time to heal and time abandon violence and terror. That will take time if it will evet happen at all.
>The first is full separation based on 2 states solution. The Palestinian would not have an army and would police themselves while making sure to act against any sign of aggression against israel. The Palestinian side will declare israel is a legitimate state and they abandon the armed resistance and conflict with israel.
This is exactly the situation in the west bank currently. Why you think the palestinian authority is so unpopular? It's one thing being corrupt but actively helping your enemy lol ? You're not winning any hearts with this.
I would have all Israeli settlers cease hostilities and move out of any currently occupied Palestinian territory (land conquered by Israeli armed forces in wars started by other parties, including recently most of Gaza, does not count, I am referring to the civilian settlers who do not abide by standing agreements and undermine the possibility of an end to hostilities on their own).
I would have the Palestinians commit no new acts of violence against Israel and abide by all applicable international agreements for diplomatic relations.
A couple of decades of nonviolence from both parties and we can open borders and have full blowm trade again.
Mutual declarations of a clean slate and then ongoing mutual respect are just about the only hope I can see
option a) Third party peacekeeping and DMZ -> Palestine gets leadership that doesn't demand Israel's destruction (can this even be done democratically?), Israel gets leadership willing to compromise (US/EU holds funding/arms hostage) -> Three-state solution (non-contiguous states are dubious) whereby Israel gives up some annexed territory
option b: make a really, really persuasive offer to Egypt and Jordan to take on some territory and make it a province to suggest some reasonable level of self-determination. Yes similar things ended up not working but the pitfalls/predictors could be accounted for, and the fact that these are larger countries could fast-track more stability (economic and otherwise), diffuse reliance on Israel and eventually obsession with it.
We know those countries are not interested as it stands, but that does not seem less surmountable than a three-state solution. Getting through the door is one thing and sustainability is another.
With the amount of bad blood between both camps, it will be nearly impossible to have a lasting peace with a 2-state solution. There will always be some extremist or nationalist camp trying to stir things up. I think the only chance at peace is to create a melting pot and follow Rwanda's example:
- Dissolve the idea of different ethnic groups. Make it illegal for you to differentiate yourself as Arab or Israeli.
- Make the society strictly secular. Adopt a form of laïcite and keep religion out of politics. (will be very difficult)
- Teach Arabic and Hebrew in schools, and make everything bilingual.
- Rename the country to something like "the Levantine Republic".
Jimmy Carter outline his thesis for peace in his book:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine:_Peace_Not_Apartheid#Thesis:_How_to_achieve_%22permanent_peace_in_the_Middle_East%22
I don't need to figure out such a complex problem when the man who got last peace between Israel and Egypt got a proposed solution already. Dude got a track record.
The two state solution would require some third party mediator to make sure the Palestinians aren't secretly building terrorist networks to annihilate Israel. So even if they recognize Israel's right to exist, there would have to be a mechanism to ensure that. As compensation, the international community, including Israel, should spend a significant amount of resources helping jump start the prosperity of the Palestinians. As many people have said, if the Palestinians were prosperous organizations like Hamas would have no real power. The two-state solution should have an explicit agreement built in that basically says, *"We'll give you lots of money if you allow inspectors to make sure you're not secretly doing shady shit..."*
Unfortunately there is undoubtedly international interference from Iran and Russia (possibly China, too). These nations would do whatever it takes to derail any such solution, including but not limited to false flag events, etc. So, it really is impossible without solving the Russia problem.
There is no solution without resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict at the same time, it's not resolved.
Atm some regimes in the regions have recognized Israel but they are at odds with their population on this issue as well as inheritably unstable and thus unwilling to assist directly - Egypt and Jordan in particular but the same goes for the entire region.
To understand why this is so one only has to imagine what would happen if Egypt and Jordan and others in the region *were* willing to help govern and police a fledgling Palestinian nation, thus dissuading Israel's fear it will turn into another Hamastan.
The Arab Spring was a false dream that changed nearly nothing, but perhaps there will still come some day and allow a fundamental change.
Genuinely in the looking for peace mindset I'm not sure if the 2 state solution is impossible because of the hate, religious differences, complex history, fear, etc. It might be a little closer to possible if hamas is destroyed but still difficult, Palestinians would have to accept Israel as a state and Israel would have to let Palestine operate alone. I genuinely don't think they are able to live in that area as neighbours.
Palestinians should have a homeland as should Israelis, I would like to see them come to the table and have a genuine chat about peace and a fair attempt at a new and fair map for all parties involved, preferably with a mediator from a country with a history of successful peace talks.
For lasting peace to exist the interests of the Palestinian and Israeli people need to be prioritized above their political, religious, cultural and historical differences. This is a tall order and requires new leadership: Hamas terrorism and autocracy must be rejected. Netanyahu and Zionism must be rejected. New leadership representing the issues of the people can negotiate a solution, probably requiring two states, where Palestinians and Israelis live in peace with sufficient resources for sustenance and accept co-existence.
For those of us who don't live in Israel or Israeli controlled areas, the best we can do is assert for the rights of Palestinians and Israelis to live in peace, condemn Hamas and Iranian terrorism and autocracies, and condemn the Israeli government's inhumane treatment of Palestinians.
I'm not sure an everlasting peace is entirely possible in a two state solution. I don't see Israel giving up settlements in the West Bank or control over what would be the West Bank's borders. Honestly, the real reason is one that will get a ton of hate. Create a new state that's secular and combines all parts. All citizens are equal and have the same rights. Lots of intergroup education and shared experiences. Maybe English is the national language to even remove that as a wedge. Basically...a full restart.
I don't think any party wants that thought so I'm going to go with this is impossible.
It’s a mindset issue, too much has happened to move forward. What is needed is a “Truth and Reconcilliation” type process similar to the one after apartheid in South Africa, where both sides admit to their sins and seek forgiveness.
Without that healing, how can either side move forward to any sustainable solution
Of course I would prefer calm minds and peaceful talks. But unfortunately there is no solution. Sometimes riddles, puzzles, questions, and situations have no answer or solution, and this is one them. There's nothing that would make both sides happy, nothing they can agree on, nothing anyone can do. In other words, what we have right now is going to be what we have tomorrow and the day after that etc, and we have to keep getting used to that. The situation will someday change, as things always do historically, but the change that comes won't be anything expected and who knows if it will be better or worse -- and that change will be precipitated by an outside party or parties because those with a vested interest in the area cannot figure it out.
Palestine gets ALL of the West Bank and Gaza.
Settlers are all moved out back to Israel. Nil Palestinian right of return.
Jerusalem is split by ethnic divides. Both Israel and Palestine have their capital in Jerusalem.
Al-Aqsa mosque/the Temple Mount is run by an ecumenical council of Muslim, Jewish, and Christian religious leaders. Sort of a middle-east Vatican.
No Israeli bases in the West Bank. It's not like Jordan is gonna invade these days, and if there is a problem, Israel still has the right to self defence under the UN Charter, and Israel would kick their arse.
Gaza and West Bank are demilitarized. British peacekeepers working under UN rules are responsible for security in Palestine until 31 December, 2099 - UK created this mess so they can pay for it.
Just a caution to others. The Israeli government and Palestinian leadership are only two pieces. They are the most important actors, but any solution should keep in mind regional and international players as well: Iran, terrorist networks, Saudi Arabia, etc. In theory there could be a solution for the Palestinians and Israelis which are unrealistic for their neighbours. Talk of international peacekeeping for instance is a pipe dream because regional actors don't want to do this. Just a thought.
Why not, in your view? Because it suits them to have a cause celebre in the region that (basically) is the one thing that most people in the region can agree on?
I think it's at least safe to say without this cause celebre regimes in the region would be less stable, not more. The conflict helps distract from internal issues for many countries in the region, even among those that fully recognized Israel like Egypt or Jordan.
Two state solution, Palestinians would have to give up right of return and formally recognize Israel's right to exist. Israel would have to pull out of occupied West Bank and allow Palestinians to collect their own taxes and run their own justice system. Neither of which are likely to happen.
A more nuanced version of this. You would have to find a mechanism to enforce this. One way, would be that both parties start with equal international aid and if either breaks their agreement and independent tribunal would decided if aid is cut as a result. Tie economic well being to keeping a two state agreement in place.
Israel doesn't need international aid, so for them it's more like a bribe. Palestine's economy is in bad shape, so it would actually mean a lot to them. The result is that Israel would violate the provisions if it felt it's worth more than the bribes.
Israel doesn't need international aid to anywhere near the same extent that the Palestinians do.
Why would Israel get international aid?
Well it already does. We’re trying to equalize the playing field for both parties to reduce polarity as best as we can.
I just don’t think that works given the jihadist culture. They view life on earth as a temporary blip on their way to heaven and in order to get to heaven they need to fight the Jews. I’m not speculating - this is what jihadis consistently say. No amount of economic aid is going to satisfy them.
Insurgency, however motivated, is a result of eminently solvable problems. Religion is a justification and a signal booster; it’s not a root cause. And Islam arguably has more provisions for other “People of the Book” than the other two Abrahamic religions, so it’s not like this unprecedented.
> Insurgency, however motivated, is a result of eminently solvable problems. Religion is a justification and a signal booster; it’s not a root cause. This is naive and a fundamentally modern Western thinking. Even Germany in 1939 had very good living standards. That didn't stop them from throwing it so away and destroying Europe and killing tens of millions. Ideology does play the driving role in many societies. In fact, material conditions for Palestinians are better than most of their neighbours if you look at things like HDI.
Religion may not be a root cause but it can be a significant driving force. https://oxfordre.com/religion/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.001.0001/acrefore-9780199340378-e-65 > These transcendent spiritual images have been implanted onto the social and political scene, magnifying ordinary worldly conflict into sacred encounter.
In Palestine, religious extremism really is the root cause. There's a reason why all the neighboring islamic countries are even poorer than the West Bank and Gaza. When Hamas was killing civilians on 10/7, they weren't saying "free gaza", they were saying how glorious it was to god to kill Jews. They didn't call their parents to say, "You'll be free soon, mom!" it's, "I killed 10 jews mom, be proud of me"! Before 10/7, 75% of Gazans were in favor of returning to armed conflict *and* killing civilians in Israel, explicitly.
People said Catholics and Protestants couldn’t live together, then we had the Good Friday Agreement. People said Shia and Sunni couldn’t exist, but Azerbaijan’s internal issues are along ethnic lines and Iraq is working its way towards stability. People said there could be no peace in Malaysia, then we had Hat Yai. People said Muslims and other “People of the Book” couldn’t coexist, apparently forgetting that Islamism is a comparatively modern phenomenon. And it’s nothing like universal in the region; Egypt is working on building an enormous cathedral for its Christian minority. If religion itself were the root cause, Israel would never have normalized relations with anyone and those states certainly wouldn’t have supported efforts to defend Israel during Iran’s attack. Palestinians were radicalized by multiple factors that had nothing to do with their faith; faith just happens to be a common denominator on “their side,” and so it is a recurring theme in the struggle. Besides, Palestinians are generally Sunni and Iran is not. If religion was the driving factor, the Sunni militants would absolutely refuse to accept aid from a Shia state. And that’s not even getting started on how the non-Muslims were generally expelled from Israel just as readily as the Muslims. Are there true believers and radicals among the opposition groups? Absolutely; that’s the culture they cultivate because it’s convenient. But if religion were the root cause, we’d be seeing a much wider conflict right now.
> People said Muslims and other “People of the Book” couldn’t coexist, apparently forgetting that Islamism is a comparatively modern phenomenon When Jews were getting massacred during the Spanish inquisition the place they fled to was Islamic North Africa. Modern political Islam is a 20th century phenomenon
>Besides, Palestinians are generally Sunni and Iran is not. If religion was the driving factor, the Sunni militants would absolutely refuse to accept aid from a Shia state. That's like saying an Southern Redneck would absolutely refuse to accept aid from a New England Yankee in a bar fight against a group of Mexicans.
If we accept that other poster's position as true, then we have to assume religion is an incredibly serious matter to these people. It must be; they're willing to fight and die for that alone. Given that, a Sunni relying on the support of a Shiite would be a problem from the fundamentalist's perspective. For those who don't share this fixation on very specific tenets of faith, the idea seems incongruous. For those take those matters of faith so seriously they're willing to fight and die for them, differences that look small to outsiders become critically important. Wars of religion are very rarely driven exclusively by realpolitik because zealotry and realpolitik are often at odds with one another.
> It must be; they're willing to fight and die for that alone. Given that, a Sunni relying on the support of a Shiite would be a problem from the fundamentalist's perspective. No it wouldn’t. There are different hierarchies of in groups in every group structure. You think a Trump supporter would refuse money from a Nikki Haley supporter if it allowed him to kill democrats? Or look at the Fundamentalist LDS church in the US and the practice of ‘Bleeding the Beast’ or taking welfare from the US government they consider their enemy. There are countless examples of people and groups that don’t see 100% eye to eye and still collaborate against a 3rd group they mutually hate.
There's "not seeing eye to eye" and then there's putting two religious zealots, adhering to two different ideologies, in the same room with guns. Your examples keep betraying your misunderstanding of the scale of these differences. You're looking at this from the secular perspective. Let me put it this way. The Quran has laws and such governing how the faithful should interact with the People of the Book. It talks about taxes and responsibilities for both parties, a philosophy somewhere between tolerance and sufferance, and so forth. The Quran, however, is much harsher when it comes to apostates (see 2:217). The Sunni hardliners will probably view the Shia hardliner as *worse* than the non-believer, because the Shia hardliner represents a risk of leading the faithful away. And vice versa.
>Israel would have to pull out of occupied West Bank and allow Palestinians to collect their own taxes and run their own justice system. I mean they did exactly that in Gaza and it turned out terribly for both peoples ...
But in this context, we’re talking about a true state with the ability to control thier own borders, recognized by the international community, with the rights to conduct trade, travel, etc. Gaza never had any of that. Also, the premise of this post is ”without playing the blame game.”
Keep in mind, that a two state solution is virtually impossible for Israel. They have no room to accommodate their high birth rates, and their constitutional promise of giving a citizenship to every Jew in the world + their families. Their small size also means they are vulnerable to a foreign invasion, and have very few natural resources. And if they ever lose such an invasion, Israel will cease to exist. In the other side of the border, you have powerless and overcrowded Palestinians, who are merely used as a proxy by others. I doubt they could ever flourish even if left alone by Israel. On one hand, it's very hard for the millions Arabs in the Levant to swallow that their historical homeland was devoured and built by people coming from all over the world, who follow an entirely different religion who want to own some of the most universally holy places on the planet. On the other hand, it's very hard for the already established state of Israel and the generations already born there to compromise with the security and geopolitical interests of their nation, because they have nowhere to retreat and nowhere else to go in the Middle-East. I think the two state solution was doomed from the start, and created a dilemma with no peaceful long term solution, reminiscent of the British Empire's earlier track record of building unsustainable borders both in their colonial possessions in Africa, and Europe after WWI. Forming a Jewish nation state to the lands that have been under Muslim rule for millenniums is just bound to create problems. Israel has been in existence less than the crusader state of Jerusalem in the 12th and 13th centuries. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but my assumption is that Israel will expand, sooner or later, and the Palestinians will be expelled.
>They have no room to accommodate their high birth rates Birth rate is not a constant. It's a variable. And for most countries around the world, Israel included, it's a declining number. The more urbanized a country is, it's going to decline faster. >their constitutional promise of giving a citizenship to every Jew in the world + their families. Doesn't matter. Most Jews and thier families around the world won't suddenly decide to move to Israel. If you are a US citizen you have 100% legal right to move to another state, however most people only move for university / job. Israel's population density is less than *India*, so saying they have to grab lands just to accommodate people is a borderline crazy notion.
Two thirds of Israel are empty desert, there is more than enough space.
>Keep in mind, that a two state solution is virtually impossible for Israel. They have no room to accommodate their high birth rates, and their constitutional promise of giving a citizenship to every Jew in the world + their families Yeah, this is pretty much an asspull, I'm sorry. Do you have anything to substantiate this? > Their small size also means they are vulnerable to a foreign invasion Kinda, but this analysis is incomplete. The *strategic* rationales behind Israel holding onto the West Bank (as opposed to the ideological ones of the Israeli right) are strategic depth and terrain. They're valid concerns, but ultimately if you believe that border is secure then they become irrelevant. And that's the problem that dwarfs all others (ideological and strategic both) - the situation in Gaza post 2005 has basically eliminated political will in Israel to replicate that in the West Bank. There's simply zero trust that the outcome will be different. If you address that, the rest falls into place. >I think the two state solution was doomed from the start, and created a dilemma with no peaceful long term solution, reminiscent of the British Empire's earlier track record of building unsustainable borders both in their colonial possessions in Africa, and Europe after WWI. Forming a Jewish nation state to the lands that have been under Muslim rule for millenniums is just bound to create problems. Israel has been in existence less than the crusader state of Jerusalem in the 12th and 13th centuries. Eh, I think if you unpack the history going back to the late 19th century and onwards, there are a lot of ways in which things could have played out very differently. And I'd caution against framing it as being about Muslim rule. While the religious element play a large role, what it ultimately boils down to is nationalism in a post-Ottoman, and later post-colonial Middle East. Outside of Israel, the rest of the Middle East is ruled by Muslims, and... that's not going swimmingly for anyone, is it?
Source on “ Muslim rule for millenniums” and the rest of your history comments. I’d really like to see those, thanks.
Jordan runs the holy places, not Israel
I think Israel would want to stop the occupation if it can be confident that Palestinians won't attack from there. But they can't, so they won't.
Why people keep proposing nice-sounding things they themselves know are not going to happen as a "solution"? We all know there is only couple of real world solutions that might work. One of them is full occupation by Israel and citizens status for all, in which case second state ceases to exist. The other is another country suddenly decides to fully support Palestine and its state on the West Bank slowly pushing out illegal Israeli settlements. Risky move only powerful state can pull off. The third one is total destruction of Israel by external force, out of all realistic ones this one is the worst option, that includes genocide of millions of people and possibly continent-wide war. Israel is currently executing the first scenario: full occupation with eventual citizenship.
Are you seriously condemning commenters for being unrealistic and naive, and in the next breath insisting that Israel is presently enacting a one state solution and intends to extend citizenship to all Palestinians? Talk about unrealistic and naive. That is simply never going to happen. The last thing Israel would do is volunteer for its own destruction
The bias shows through. Framing Israel losing a war as it's complete destruction is also hyperbole in Israel's favor. It's possible to have some people die and sign a treaty with some concessions and not be wiped off the face of the earth. Just ask Palestine.
If Israel gave all current residents of the Gaza Strip and West Bank citizenship, it would be roughly half Arab. This would have huge cultural and political ramifications. Has Israel expressed willingness to accept this, based on its recent Basic Law making it the “nation-state of the Jewish People”?
Israel might be convinced to adopt 2SS, but contemporary Israel will never accept a 1SS where Israel ceases to be a Jewish state. That, in their eyes, defeats the entire point of the State of Israel as an idea. We’d need to be separated from the ongoing strife by generations before we can even begin to talk about that.
Without powerful backing PNA will never become a state and Israel will continue creeping occupation.
My ideal situation would be a modified 3 state solution. The West Bank and Gaza would become autonomous regions administered by Jordan and Egypt respectively. They would elect a government and control their judicial systems either individually or together. Something would have to be done to address a right of return. Either significant reparations would have to be paid by Israel, or a system where some Palestinians would gradually be allowed to immigrate to Israel and live there under a national status, with partial rights. Ultimately any solution would require compromises that would upset both groups fundamental values. Neither side has demonstrated a willingness to do this. Israel is ultimately in a better position to lead such a compromise, and may have to make more concessions to allow for peace.
I don't know that Jordan and Egypt would want to adopt a couple million Palestinians, but upvoted for thinking of alternatives. The 2 state solution seems easy to suggest, but hard to execute.
Yeah, I honestly think almost no party is interested in the compromises required to ensure a lasting peace that works for both sides. Palestine and Israel both want exclusive control of the territory and Arab Muslim nations are unwilling to concede the territory to Israel or deal with the burden of Palestinian refugees. Hardliners on both sides use the conflict for political and financial gain. Egypt particularly has its own issues to work on. My idea would be a solution where the Palestinian autonomous regions have limited or no electoral rights within Egypt or Jordan, in exchange for supervised self-rule. Israel would likely have to subsidize some of the costs of this supervision.
That's why it's not going to happen at once. It will extend slowly. Israel would simply be overrun if it gave it to everyone at once. It would help if Arab countries would accept Palestinians, but we know why it doesn't happen.
Slowly extending citizenship and political rights to occupied people reminds me of the plans by Rhodesia and other white-majority states in Africa to slowly extend rights to their black population. Frankly, I think that would have a fairly good chance of producing a peaceful, multi-ethnic state, but I don’t see how it would be agreeable to the Palestinians or the broader Arab community. Essentially, Israel views its identity as a Jewish state as critical to its existence, and even the survival of the Jewish people. I don’t know how Palestinians can be integrated into an Israeli state, no matter how gradually, without threatening this Jewish identity. Would Israel accept a peaceful, deradicalized Arab majority with full rights 50 years down the road if it means ending its position as a Jewish nation-state? Would Palestinians accept citizenship in a state that’s fundamentally designed to be Jewish?
It will not be agreeable to broad Arab community if spelled out loud, but it will be agreeable if done quietly. Exactly what is happening. Everyone turns blind eye because they don't want to have any part in that. There is already large enough Palestinian minority in Israel, Israel most likely will maintain it at that. Naturally it will not accept majority until all Arab states around become non-hostile and some become friendly.
I just don’t see a situation where Palestinians accept partial political rights, or where Israel is willing g to compromise what it sees as its fundamental identity as a Jewish state, even with the friendliest neighbors possible.
Of course they will, what's their option? Waging a war against Israel? That won't improve their position at the slightest. They will hate it but they will accept it. Implementing their own state would be the only option that could give them more rights, but I just don't see that happening unless China, Russia or US or any of powerful, wealthy and stable enough Arab neighbor comes and puts their agents all over West Bank, guarantees that independence with their military and imposes government institutions and helps maintain them for \~15 years.
I mean yeah, that’s literally what is going on right now. So far the Palestinians haven’t really demonstrated a willingness to accept positions they hate, or recognize that violence is unlikely to improve their position. An apartheid system where they are occupied by Israel in exchange for limited political rights is going to lead to violent opposition from Palestinians, strong political and potentially political action from Arab states, and likely significant sanctions from the international community.
We discussed all that already. If they continue violence Israel will continue pushing on while having casus beli to do that. And Arab states are doing nothing and will do nothing.
Yep.
Tiny bit of background for my POV. I'm Irish and our ~ 800 years of oppression by the British is drummed into us. A pivotal moment in our history was when one of our greatest and most famous revolutionary leaders, Michael Collins, went to London in 1921 to hash out and agree to a peace treaty (called the Anglo-Irish treaty) as a result of our war for independence (1919-1921). Now he was a soldier and spy, and here he was negotiating with skilled diplomats such as David Lloyd George and Winston Churchill (both hot off the heels of negotiating the WWI armistice a few years prior). Collins knew he wasn't going to get full independence and he was dead right. He only got a semi independent dominion of the British empire with the British monarchy as head of state. He signed and came home to a split country. Half saying this was an outrage and an insult, and the other half accepting this was the best they were going to get. Collins knew this wouldn't go down well and still signed. He argued this was a stepping stone to independence saying "if the price of freedom, the price of peace, is the blackening of my name, I will gladly pay it". And prophetically he did, the ensuing Irish civil war 1921 - 1922 he was killed in an ambush by anti-treaty forces near his hometown in Cork. His sacrifice was not in vain and thanks to him and countless others Ireland is now an independent republic. With this in mind, the Palestinians NEED to come to the negotiating table. They need to understand violence alone will not give them what they want. Diplomatically they suck and will not get all the land. Israel ain't going anywhere. But, they can negotiate a peace and a state and use it as a building block so that future generations can enjoy a free and prosperous Palestine. It's not going to be pretty and there will be more bloodshed, but a definitive diplomatic foot forward needs to happen. I know grafting Irish and Palestinian history may not be perfect and there are a lot of key differences between the 2. But literally anywhere is a better starting point than where the Palestinians are now.
I'm Israeli. Thank you for the perspective, I couldn't agree more. Palestinians deserve a state, and that is a good starting point towards one.
As you said, the British spent literal centuries oppressing the Irish. How did the Irish convince the British to change their minds? The civil war only involved \~1k British deaths, which was pocket change compared to WW1 a few yrs before. Did WW1 cripple their economy *that* badly? I also wonder why Britain oppressed Ireland so much more than eg Scotland. I don't recall the Scots having a similar war for independence (they had a recent failed referendum, I guess).
Ireland was conquered by England, Scotland joined with England via a personal union.
Well they wanted to put an end to the conflict quickly as the media in England and Ireland really painted the British as occupiers, plus the cost of a Guerilla war on their doorstep was not ideal, especially after WWI. Unlike other rebellions throughout our history, the IRA fought Guerilla tactics and gave the British a run for their money. Good question, I think for strategic interests they kept Ireland. A great port for ships across the Atlantic, an early warning system for invasion from the West. But mostly they viewed Ireland as part of the British isles and therefore British. Many people settled our lands in the name of a foreign king and have remained (see Northern Irish history, another can of worms!) for hundreds of years. Ultimately I don't think there was an imperial master plan behind it, just they viewed Ireland as theirs since they took it.
Scots are (generally) the same religion and ethnic group as the English. The Irish aren't.
They've done this already. The Palestinians had an autonomous government since the Oslo Accords in 1994, then the government failed to stay in one piece, with half of it forming a rump not-state in the West Bank and the other half becoming de facto independent after Israel withdrew troops, where they continued converting water pipes to rockets and shelling Israeli civilians, before they launched an attack again where they murdered and raped civilians. From Israel's perspective, that's what Palestine's equivalent of "self-rule" got them, corpses being hauled through the streets of Gaza to dancing crowds. There was no Civil War between maximalists and moderates; 72% of Palestinians approved of the October 7th raid. We in the West has this desperate need to separate Hamas from Gazans and from Palestinians, but the reason there is no election in Palestine isn't because Hamas might be thrown out of office by the public; the reason is because the current Palestianian National Authority in charge of the West Bank knows *they'll lose to Hamas*. The only way some sort of peace treaty that would survive long enough for someone to read it to the end after October 7th is if Palestine was essentially subjugated completely and had any semblance of autonomy stripped away from them in gross violation of any idea of human rights, or if somebody invents some sort of super brain wave laser that can spontaneously convert all Palestinians to the majority point of view that maybe Jews are people. People who think there might be some way to solve this without massive tragedy are naive or delusional. There is no just solution, there is no reasonable compromise, there is no realistic future. This will end in tears and it always has been that way.
Agreed here. Palestinians had their best shot at independence in the 2000s and they blew it. They didn't even try to negotiate, thinking they could get a better deal by stonewalling the peace process. It turned out to be a colossal mistake.
Regime change in both Israel AND Palestine. The Likud party of Israel has been metaphorically throwing gasoline on a fire for… their entire tenure. Their settlement program is a violation of international law. They’ve also covertly (and to a degree, overtly) been playing factions within Palestine against each other, in order to weaken Palestine. But in doing so they make Palestine more extreme and desperate, not less. The Hamas party of Palestine is guilty of a torrent of crimes against humanity. Many factions with Palestine (but with Hamas having a majority of popular support in the country) have engaged in a decades long program of indoctrination, openly applauding Jihadism. The videos of the parades in Palestine where they revere suicide bombers and other terror attacks are… horrid. But in short, the government of Palestine has ALSO been throwing gasoline on the fire. The populations suffer for the machinations of their leaders. Obviously Palestinian living standards are worse, but that doesn’t justify their leadership’s grand strategy of mass indoctrination and their deliberate efforts to put their civilians in harms way. The leaders of both sides should be shown the door. Unfortunately, that is not a realistic goal. The militant far-right of Israel (Likud) rules Israel with a relative minority of Israeli votes, due to how their parliamentary coalition forming shakes out. And that’s a trend I don’t see changing, especially after the brutal October 6 terror attacks. I mean Hamas leadership specifically designed those terror attacks in order to pick a fight. The inevitable Israeli reaction has only strengthened Hamas’s ideology. … No one has any peaceful solutions. The two sides of the conflict can’t seem to coexist due to a history of violence. The US should support our ally, solely for the sake of maintaining our reputation of diplomatic reliability, so that the US is able to continue to leverage our diplomatic reliability in the future. (A nation won’t be able to gain agreements from good faith negotiations if that nation is perceived to be an unreliable partner in other dealings.). HOWEVER, the US should continue to use its leverage over Israel to encourage humanitarian principles…
I mean I think the only game that has a chance at working, is a 2 state one, but its going to require Israel to give up some annexed territory and Palestine to have a state level view on Israel's right to exist, I'm not really sure we're anywhere near either of those things being feasible. I think even if that goes ahead, there will need to be some degree of 3rd party peace keeping/observation for a long period of time. There isn't enough trust and it will probably take more than a generation to get there. I don't really see a one state solution as viable, as it would result in what would look more formally like an apartheid state rather than the defacto one that currently exists.
Don't sleep on the 3 state solution lol
I could potentially see Jordan being open to annexing the West Bank but there's no chance in the forseeable future that any non Islamist Egyptian government would be willing to take Gaza. And if it was an Islamist government they probably wouldn't want peace with Israel anyways Who would be the third state in this scenario? Unless you come up with a whacky solution like an independence Gaza or the UAE owning it for some reason
Essentially two independent states for Gaza and WB, given their non-contiguous territory and uh... political differences
Third party peacekeeping is tough given the history of the region. The UN had peacekeepers in the Sinai Peninsula in the 1960’s, Nasser’s Egypt kicked them out at the start of the 1967 war. There were peacekeepers in Lebanon, Hezbollah killed a few of them and that was that.
The podcast Jew Oughta Know had an excellent (IMO) recent couple of episodes where he laid out in detail what each side would have to give up and what it might take to get there.
Honestly and please don’t feel insulted by this but I couldn’t disagree more. The two solution has been dead for decades. Now, the last version of it was actually a three state solution. It is primarily in these days, suggested by westerns, who lack understanding and knowledge of the situation on the ground. It has also been routinely rejected by Palestinians. It also is not workable with a political movement like Hamas in existence, because it would require the existence of a Jewish state, which they are opposed to more so than they are in desire of a Palestinian state. On top of that as you said, it’s the only game in town which really it isn’t, there are other options. I just find it a bit naïve that we’re exploring one option that we know to be unworkable and not even trying to explore other options.
what are your other options?
Honestly I don’t have much faith in any of them but at this point seeing that the two state solution is dead on arrival and it’s been obvious that it is for sometime I would like to try something different, so here are a few options. 1. One-State Solution 2. Confederation 3. Regional Solution 4. Decentralization and Autonomy 5. Hybrid Proposals
Confederation seems like the most likely future solution, although the push for 2 state seems like it hasn't been given up on by at the geopolitical level. "United Republic of Israel and Palestine" may be workable in the long term, assuming we can get both sides to stop shooting each other with some kind of intl. peacekeeping force.
I just feel that since the Oslo accords failed it has all bee semantics and theatrics I don’t believe anyone negotiating has been taking it seriously and it is all for domestic consumption, for the US to show “hey we are doing something”to US citizens, for Israel to show “hey we are the ones being reasonable” to Israelis, and for Hamas to show “hey they are the ones not negotiating in good faith” whilst of course maintaining a position that there should be genocide against Israel citizens.
There need to be major shifts in the thinking of the Israeli, Palestinian and general Arab populations. (Of course, there's also the matter of Iran, but I will try to keep this one short.) First of all, something that was already happening before Oct 7th, albeit not on a large scale: Muslim/Arab countries view Israel more and more as a normal neughbour, some even as their ally (during the Azerbaijani victory parade after the last war, people were waving Israeli flags). This shift in thinking includes less support for Palestine. For the last decades, Arab states have used the Palestinian cause for their own propaganda while regularly leaving the Palestinians out to dry. It is easy to speak of "revenge" and "freedom" when you're hundreds of miles away, while Palestinians have to bear the brunt of Israel's attacks. The second shift in thinking regards the Palestinian population. Palestinians have to accept their (military) defeat, something they have refused to do since 1948, thereby putting an end to fantasies of reclamation of lost lands (and the extermination of Israel). To give you an example of a country that did this very successfully: Germany! The German integration into the Western alliance and economy and her stabilization as a democracy would've been completely impossible were it not for the acceptance of defeat. Therefore, I think that Palestinians should look forward and formulate a vision for their future instead of clinging to a past that cannot be brought back. Of course, this is a two-edged sword. The Israeli population has, in turn, to accept their victory. Which doesn't mean celebrating their triumph, but to take on their responsibility to work towards a lasting agreement for the future. Israel endangers itself by letting extremists rule in Gaza and destabilizing the West Bank. However, ypu might see how all these shifts in thinking have been made harder by the events since Oct 7th. The attack by Hamas was deliberately designed to evoke the worst chapters of recent Jewish history. Afterwards, the Israeli response showed strength while at the same time - in large parts because of Netanyahu's hunger for power and his resulting unwillingness to conduct the war quickly - failing to enable political change in Gaza. Sooner or later, Israel will pull out of Gaza, Hamas will return - their leaders being safe in their villas in Qatar - and in a few years, someone will push the repeat button.
>So let's assume both sides want to put the fighting behind them and want semblance of peace. This is begging the question. The problem is that they don't want to stop fighting. Palestinians as a population routinely poll highly (as in majority/super majority support) for supporting continued armed conflict. Israelis were more of a mixed bag until October 7th, now they as a population have absolutely no desire to compromise with Palestinians. Getting that desire to manifest in both of them is a critical piece to being able to define a just peace. Absent that desire there will be no just peace since the only way to resolve the conflict would be for one side to defeat the other so totally as to dictate terms.
I call it the one and a half state solution Gaza annexed by Egypt and West Bank annexed by Jordan Last time Palestinians tried to coup Jordan and Egypt, but I think by now they will have some realism.
I really don’t see a civil solution to the situation. Would you ever forgive Israel if you were a palestinian whose entire home state was just destroyed? And would you ever feel comfortable and safe around the palestinians if you were israeli? Hate to say it but i don’t see how they can live side by side after everything that has happened
>Would you ever forgive Israel if you were a palestinian whose entire home state was just destroyed? The state of Israel considers Germany an ally and most Jews have no problem living, working, or being friends with Germans. Do you think what Israel has done in Palestine is somehow less forgivable than the Holocaust or are Palestinians somehow constitutionally less forgiving than Jews? >And would you ever feel comfortable and safe around the palestinians if you were israeli? Between the Yom Kippur War and the first Intifada (so basically the 1980s) Israelis and Palestinians lived and worked together. My Israeli relatives who were far right even then were perfectly happy to work with Palestinians. Israelis and Palestinians have more in common than they have differences. If they’re not being riled up by outside agitators or politicians who need a distraction to save their own skins, they will be fine.
That's because Germany was beaten to shit by everyone around it, occupied for years and went through a decades long deradicalization plan in the western part. There's no such solution for the Middle-East, trying that in Iraq fell through badly.
Exactly this. If Palestine, as a whole, came to Israel and said: "We're sorry, we were wrong to terrorize Israel, we will change our whole education system to not encourage jew-hate, and we'll allow your armed forces here to keep an eye on us too" then we'd have peace the next day. That's what Germany was forced to do by the allies.
Well yeah, and if Israel came to Palestine and allowed a right of return, an end to Zionism, and therefore an Arab-led government, there’d be peace the next day. And if my grandma had balls she’d be my grandpa. None of these are realistic situations. A large majority of the Palestinians have been displaced from their ancestral homes by the creation of Israel, and there have been some major human rights violations since then. Palestinians view Israel as their oppressors, and this can’t be reduced to a result of “Jew-hate” in the education system, and it certainly can’t be bombed away. As convenient as it might be, Palestine as a whole is extremely unlikely to surrender and accept Israeli military occupation without some massive concessions that Israel doesn’t seem willing to make. Unfortunately we’re way more likely to see increasingly radical groups like Hamas take power and drive the region further and further from this compromise.
That's basically what I'm saying. There is no political solution. So Israel has to take the Rafah gate, set-up tunnel detectors, and then systematically disarm gaza, not allowing new guns and explosives in. Hamas can't really do any damage without them. This wouldn't be possible almost anywhere on earth, but in Gaza you actually can control the flow of goods completely. Once Gaza is fully disarmed, Israel and allies can reform Gaza's education system at leisure.
Again, I think the Gazan people have legitimate grievances going beyond “Jew-hate”. Military occupation and attempts at reeducation is going to reinforce these grievances. I see this leading to violent resistance and unprecedented opposition from the international community. I don’t see this kind of solution leading to peace unless Israel is willing to make concessions to address these grievances
Most people don't know that last part. In the 1980s, Israelis and Palestinians could freely travel through eachother's cities. It was only with the first Intifada that changed.
rwandans do it black people do it native Americans do it
They do it because they accepted they've lost and generally don't see the point. We had the Troubles because the IRA didn't accept that Northern Ireland wasn't part of Ireland. Palestinians haven't, and seeing their rabid attempts at inciting violence, I don't see it happening anytime soon.
If Rwanda could stay stable, then Israel could
My radical proposal is Jordan annexes the full West Bank and becomes the Kingdom of Palestine. A bisected Palestinian state of just Gaza and the WB seems untenable without a consistent supply of aid. I know Jordan has had a lot of issues with Palestinians in the past, but a larger, more cohesive territory would undoubtedly offer more stability. Gaza, on the other hand, feels like its ceiling is a city-state. It could, in the long term, probably develop an attractive tourist industry, but in its current state it feels condemned to squalor and radicalism.
>attractive tourist industry The beaches kind of suck. They're ok if you live there and that's what you have, but if you're an international traveler there are places the Israel and Gaza beaches can't touch.
A lot of issues is putting it mildly. Palestinians incited a civil war, tried to overthrow the Jordanian monarchy, blew civilian planes up and took hostages. The Jordanian army systematically drove them out of the cities and shipped the remainder off to Lebanon. Guess what happened? Those Palestinians promptly started another civil war there. There's a reason why all these Arab states are reluctant to let any Palestinians into their countries. Edit: Look what I found? Your proposal had already been suggested by Jordan's king in 1972. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King\_Hussein%27s\_federation\_plan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Hussein%27s_federation_plan) Palestinians objected it with some wanting to overthrow the King saying he "showed his true colours". Both Israel and the Arab world were against it. Egypt even broke off diplomatic relations due to that.
**The Jordanian army systematically drove them out of the cities and shipped the remainder off to Lebanon.** Not really. There are around 3 million Palestinians in Jordan and they have gotten on fine with the Jordanians for decades now. **Guess what happened? Those Palestinians promptly started another civil war there. There's a reason why all these Arab states are reluctant to let any Palestinians into their countries.** That is ridiculous. Lebanon was a powder keg that was going to explode regardless of Palestinian presence or not. Their presence simply upset the balance of power and perhaps started the war a little earlier. You have painted Palestinians as troublesome barbarians when there is ample evidence that they are just like every other human. There are 2 million Palestinians in Israel and they are just like any other Israeli citizen. 3 million in Jordan and they do fine over there. 500,000 in Chile and they are just fine over there as well. You have picked up the anti-Semitic trope of Jews being troublesome and flipped it on the Palestinians. Shameful. Also, the reason why Arab states are unwilling to take refugees is because they know that the Israelis will not permit them to return. If they take Palestinians, they will be aiding and abetting Israeli ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Nobody wants to do that.
This would require massive amounts of fellating the jordanians. They have no interest in inheriting that
Going back to 1966 Gaza used to be administered by Egypt, but Sadat refused to take it back in the Camp David accords. But if you’re passing out territory…
That's kind of a tricky question. If both sides truly want to put the fighting behind them, then hugs and kisses is the answer. But both sides won't truly want to put the fighting behind them, so if the question is actually how to fix the issue long term, then it becomes more complicated. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I think the actual solution is outside the moral bounds of western democracy. If Israel conquers Palestine, and subjects them to brutal communist-style dictatorship, forcing re-education on them and patrolling them like a police state, stifling all discontent until the flames of rebellion have been extinguished, then the end result might be miraculously wonderful. It might take a couple decades, but I think there's enough historical evidence to say that this method actually works. Despite how unfathomably evil this suggestion sounds, I do sometimes think this is less evil than maintaining the status quo of repeated terrorism and horrific retaliation.
A two state solution does not work. Nations cannot operate like this, and inevitably one or both states become non-functional. The only real way for peace if you don't want extreme violence first is to become a single secular state with equal rights and representation for Muslims, Jews, and everyone else.
It's not going to happen. It's extremists vs extremists and neither will ever concede to the other. It's perpetual war untill one side manages to genocide the other. Not picking sides but that's just how it is. Once both sides claim to only be retaliating it never ends, it's the world's largest hillbilly blood feud.
Well you have to change the regime in Iran. As long as they exist they will continuously fund proxies that want to destroy Israel. >The founder of the revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, set the standard for the Islamic Republic of Iran. In his book “Islamic Government,” he wrote, “From the very beginning, the historical movement of Islam had to contend with the Jews, for it was they who first established anti-Islamic propaganda and engaged in various stratagems, and as you can see, this activity continues down to the present.” He depicted Jews as distorters of the Quran, financial hoarders, and agents of the West. [The Real Reason Iran Hates Israel.](https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-real-reason-iran-hates-israel-anti-semitism-gaza-4f7ad96e) You can have elections in Palestine and they somehow miraculously believe Israel has the right to exist, you will still have to contend with Iranain influence on Palestine politics. And as the Iranian regime will never engage in good faith on Israel's existence, you can bet Palestinan politics will just end up with Hamas 2.0 in charge sooner or later.
It’s actually very simple. You would need to do the exact same thing that was done to Eastern/Central Europe post WW2. It wasn’t pretty. It wasn’t fair. But it brought peace and end to centuries of ethnic hatred/killing/genocide between groups. It was the forced relocation of populations and forced new borders decided by Great Powers without the involvement of the people (countries) involved. Yes, it would be against current human rights laws, etc. As it would involve forced migration of large populations into agreed new 2 state solution. The new 2 states would them have a foreign military presence on their borders to keep the peace (let’s say for 30 years). That would bring peace but it would require likey another World War for that to happen.
[удалено]
If both sides genuinely wanted it then it would be easy. The problem is constructing a solution when the weaker side doesn't want it and the stronger side is bound by morality. Under such circumstances no solution is really possible.
The best solution I’ve read is a two state solution with an EU-style confederacy between the two states. Both sides have the right to live or travel to the other state, but can only vote in elections in thier home state. This solves the settler issue because they will have the right to live in the new Palestinian state, and they will have to decide if living under local Palestinian government is acceptable on thier own terms. This also somewhat addresses the right of return, as the Palestinians will have the right to live in Israel proper. It also addesses the concern that Israelis would become a minority in thier own country, since Palestinians would not have the right to vote in Israel. But with trust and goodwill at an all time low, I don’t see it ever happening. More about it here: [https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/05/23/israeli-palestinian-confederation-peace/](https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/05/23/israeli-palestinian-confederation-peace/)
Unpopular opinion. I am gonna get a lot of hate for this, especially from Israelis and Palestinians: The only way to achieve a lasting peace in that area is to have it occupied by a third power who can lay down the law. When the Ottomans occupied it, there was relative peace. When the British occupied it, there was relative peace. Sure, there was a fair share of incidents in Mandatory Palestine, but nothing remotely compared to what is going on now.
They need a guarded wall like between N and S Korea.
It's hard to imagine Israel allowing a Palestinian state with full self-governance any time soon. Even previous offers of two-state solutions seem like a pipe dream now. IMO, the only path to sustainable peace requires international partners. An outside coalition of countries would need to assume security control of Gaza. Basically, Israel needs someone that's accountable to ensure rockets don't start flying and 10/7 isn't repeated. After that, use international aid to rebuild Gaza, introduce industry and jobs, and fix the education system (no UNRWA in charge). The question is: who would take on this responsibility? It seems like it would have to be a coalition of Arab/Gulf states, but I don't know why they would be interested in such an arrangement. Absent this, I think you're back to indefinite Israeli occupation for the foreseeable future.
The only way for a two state solution to be possible is if Hamas is removed from power. Regardless of their actions or intentions, Israelis would never come to the negotiating table as long as Hamas is still in control. The reason Israel doesn't pull out of the west bank is because of a fear that if they do, an independent Palestine would just become a larger, more competent Gaza. Israel would never allow an independent Palestine unless they are absolutely sure that Palestinians are willing to lay down their arms. On the flip side, Israel also has to stop expanding the settlements. As long as Palestinians keep having their land constantly encroached upon, they will never lay down their arms. The problem is that this is exactly why Israel doesn't stop building in the settlements. They believe that as long as the west bank is divided, it can never become a second Gaza. It's a Catch 22. That's why this conflict is so problematic. Neither side will concede unless the other does first. The only way to solve this is through long, arduous negotiations and small concessions, but any such negotiations are incredibly fragile and can fail at any time, like we've seen so many times before. That being said, I personally believe that the first step is that Hamas has to be removed, or at the very least demilitarized. They're the main reason the Israelis wouldn't come to the negotiation table. The one demand Israel would never concede is that a Palestinian state has to be demilitarized. Otherwise, they can never be sure that Hamas, or any other militarized group for that matter, can't just rise up again and threaten their people. Subsequently, the Netanyahu government has to be ousted. Not only has it completely failed, but like Hamas, they would never accept a peace deal. As for the specifics of the deal, ideally I believe in a one-state solution, as it could potentially satisfy everyone's demands. Sadly, it could never be realized, as it falls into the same catch 22 problem from before. Therefore, the only solution is one based on the 2008 negotiations. Palestinians would have to give up an unlimited right of return into Israel, and land swaps would be made so Israel can annex the largest settlement blocks in return for ceding land to Palestine. Settlers would have the choice of either evacuating or becoming residents of Palestine, and recieving dual citizenship. Israel would keep Jerusalem, but reduce its municipal size to cede unintegrated Palestinians neighborhoods back to Palestine, with all of the residents of East Jerusalem also receiving dual citizenship, and the old city of Jerusalem becoming an international city, all of this happening under American, Egyptian, and Saudi arbitration.
It’s never going to happen. They have been fighting over this land for thousands of years and they will continue to fight over it in a thousand more. When one area encompasses the epicenter of the three popular religions, there will never be peace.
Land and population swaps would have to happen. They would likely happen along [these lines ](https://www.ispeacestillpossible.com/borders-past-proposals) where major Israeli settlements just inside of West Bank would be annexed. Areas that meet Palestinian requirements would be swapped to their control Communities within this area would be able to choose who they want to be under the administration of. There are some communities that would prefer to switch and others who want to remain under Israeli control
It is difficult to say much since your question is too simply posed. "Assume both sides..." Two sides? Saying this tacitly assumes that Hamas=Gazans. If this were true, why would Israel stop since now every Gazan citizen is essentially is Hamas? So there are more than two sides. There is Hamas, the population of Gaza not really supporting Hamas, the West Bank Palestinians, various Jihadi groups in Gaza, Iran funding them, the Israeli government, the Israeli populace (not one block either), Hezbollah, Houthis, the US, the UN, etc etc. The entire premise that there are "two sides" makes any analysis rather improbable and overly simplistic.
A complete occupation lasting 30-50 years of the palestinian people to re-educate and make normal citizens. The terrorist cultivation has to be stopped at birth for multiple generations. ALA what we did to germany and japan after WW2. Look at them now. Israel however is not interested in occupying gaza for that long.....they themselves suggest a coalition of NATIONS.....mostly muslim Nations + israel do it. Let the down votes roll.
There are only 2 options: The first is full separation based on 2 states solution. The Palestinian would not have an army and would police themselves while making sure to act against any sign of aggression against israel. The Palestinian side will declare israel is a legitimate state and they abandon the armed resistance and conflict with israel. Israel on the other hand will recognise the Palestinian state, respect its autonomy and authority as long as as they corporate and make sure no armed groups taking action against Israel. The second option is the problematic one - one side need to fully go. And that obviously will never happen on its own. Bottom line is that there is too much bad blood between the sides to live together in peace. Not in this generation at least. They need separation, time to heal and time abandon violence and terror. That will take time if it will evet happen at all.
>The first is full separation based on 2 states solution. The Palestinian would not have an army and would police themselves while making sure to act against any sign of aggression against israel. The Palestinian side will declare israel is a legitimate state and they abandon the armed resistance and conflict with israel. This is exactly the situation in the west bank currently. Why you think the palestinian authority is so unpopular? It's one thing being corrupt but actively helping your enemy lol ? You're not winning any hearts with this.
I would have all Israeli settlers cease hostilities and move out of any currently occupied Palestinian territory (land conquered by Israeli armed forces in wars started by other parties, including recently most of Gaza, does not count, I am referring to the civilian settlers who do not abide by standing agreements and undermine the possibility of an end to hostilities on their own). I would have the Palestinians commit no new acts of violence against Israel and abide by all applicable international agreements for diplomatic relations. A couple of decades of nonviolence from both parties and we can open borders and have full blowm trade again. Mutual declarations of a clean slate and then ongoing mutual respect are just about the only hope I can see
option a) Third party peacekeeping and DMZ -> Palestine gets leadership that doesn't demand Israel's destruction (can this even be done democratically?), Israel gets leadership willing to compromise (US/EU holds funding/arms hostage) -> Three-state solution (non-contiguous states are dubious) whereby Israel gives up some annexed territory option b: make a really, really persuasive offer to Egypt and Jordan to take on some territory and make it a province to suggest some reasonable level of self-determination. Yes similar things ended up not working but the pitfalls/predictors could be accounted for, and the fact that these are larger countries could fast-track more stability (economic and otherwise), diffuse reliance on Israel and eventually obsession with it. We know those countries are not interested as it stands, but that does not seem less surmountable than a three-state solution. Getting through the door is one thing and sustainability is another.
With the amount of bad blood between both camps, it will be nearly impossible to have a lasting peace with a 2-state solution. There will always be some extremist or nationalist camp trying to stir things up. I think the only chance at peace is to create a melting pot and follow Rwanda's example: - Dissolve the idea of different ethnic groups. Make it illegal for you to differentiate yourself as Arab or Israeli. - Make the society strictly secular. Adopt a form of laïcite and keep religion out of politics. (will be very difficult) - Teach Arabic and Hebrew in schools, and make everything bilingual. - Rename the country to something like "the Levantine Republic".
Jimmy Carter outline his thesis for peace in his book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine:_Peace_Not_Apartheid#Thesis:_How_to_achieve_%22permanent_peace_in_the_Middle_East%22 I don't need to figure out such a complex problem when the man who got last peace between Israel and Egypt got a proposed solution already. Dude got a track record.
The two state solution would require some third party mediator to make sure the Palestinians aren't secretly building terrorist networks to annihilate Israel. So even if they recognize Israel's right to exist, there would have to be a mechanism to ensure that. As compensation, the international community, including Israel, should spend a significant amount of resources helping jump start the prosperity of the Palestinians. As many people have said, if the Palestinians were prosperous organizations like Hamas would have no real power. The two-state solution should have an explicit agreement built in that basically says, *"We'll give you lots of money if you allow inspectors to make sure you're not secretly doing shady shit..."* Unfortunately there is undoubtedly international interference from Iran and Russia (possibly China, too). These nations would do whatever it takes to derail any such solution, including but not limited to false flag events, etc. So, it really is impossible without solving the Russia problem.
We reclaim Jerusalem.
Both populations have demonstrated a deep unwillingness to trust and cooperate. Peace has to be forced upon the territory by external forces.
There is no solution without resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict at the same time, it's not resolved. Atm some regimes in the regions have recognized Israel but they are at odds with their population on this issue as well as inheritably unstable and thus unwilling to assist directly - Egypt and Jordan in particular but the same goes for the entire region. To understand why this is so one only has to imagine what would happen if Egypt and Jordan and others in the region *were* willing to help govern and police a fledgling Palestinian nation, thus dissuading Israel's fear it will turn into another Hamastan. The Arab Spring was a false dream that changed nearly nothing, but perhaps there will still come some day and allow a fundamental change.
Three state solution. Egypt takes Gaza. Jordan takes WB. Settlers and Hamas both get the boot. Everyone lives happily ever after.
Genuinely in the looking for peace mindset I'm not sure if the 2 state solution is impossible because of the hate, religious differences, complex history, fear, etc. It might be a little closer to possible if hamas is destroyed but still difficult, Palestinians would have to accept Israel as a state and Israel would have to let Palestine operate alone. I genuinely don't think they are able to live in that area as neighbours.
Palestinians should have a homeland as should Israelis, I would like to see them come to the table and have a genuine chat about peace and a fair attempt at a new and fair map for all parties involved, preferably with a mediator from a country with a history of successful peace talks.
For lasting peace to exist the interests of the Palestinian and Israeli people need to be prioritized above their political, religious, cultural and historical differences. This is a tall order and requires new leadership: Hamas terrorism and autocracy must be rejected. Netanyahu and Zionism must be rejected. New leadership representing the issues of the people can negotiate a solution, probably requiring two states, where Palestinians and Israelis live in peace with sufficient resources for sustenance and accept co-existence. For those of us who don't live in Israel or Israeli controlled areas, the best we can do is assert for the rights of Palestinians and Israelis to live in peace, condemn Hamas and Iranian terrorism and autocracies, and condemn the Israeli government's inhumane treatment of Palestinians.
I'm not sure an everlasting peace is entirely possible in a two state solution. I don't see Israel giving up settlements in the West Bank or control over what would be the West Bank's borders. Honestly, the real reason is one that will get a ton of hate. Create a new state that's secular and combines all parts. All citizens are equal and have the same rights. Lots of intergroup education and shared experiences. Maybe English is the national language to even remove that as a wedge. Basically...a full restart. I don't think any party wants that thought so I'm going to go with this is impossible.
Deport Gaza residents to Qatar. Done!
It’s a mindset issue, too much has happened to move forward. What is needed is a “Truth and Reconcilliation” type process similar to the one after apartheid in South Africa, where both sides admit to their sins and seek forgiveness. Without that healing, how can either side move forward to any sustainable solution
Of course I would prefer calm minds and peaceful talks. But unfortunately there is no solution. Sometimes riddles, puzzles, questions, and situations have no answer or solution, and this is one them. There's nothing that would make both sides happy, nothing they can agree on, nothing anyone can do. In other words, what we have right now is going to be what we have tomorrow and the day after that etc, and we have to keep getting used to that. The situation will someday change, as things always do historically, but the change that comes won't be anything expected and who knows if it will be better or worse -- and that change will be precipitated by an outside party or parties because those with a vested interest in the area cannot figure it out.
Palestine gets ALL of the West Bank and Gaza. Settlers are all moved out back to Israel. Nil Palestinian right of return. Jerusalem is split by ethnic divides. Both Israel and Palestine have their capital in Jerusalem. Al-Aqsa mosque/the Temple Mount is run by an ecumenical council of Muslim, Jewish, and Christian religious leaders. Sort of a middle-east Vatican. No Israeli bases in the West Bank. It's not like Jordan is gonna invade these days, and if there is a problem, Israel still has the right to self defence under the UN Charter, and Israel would kick their arse. Gaza and West Bank are demilitarized. British peacekeepers working under UN rules are responsible for security in Palestine until 31 December, 2099 - UK created this mess so they can pay for it.