The Palestinian Statehood Thread

[Molyneux]

Man listening to Abbas is freaking sad. Here is a member of a nation asking its occupying power for only a fifth of its territory.

Full statement - PDF warning.

"A fifth of its territory" - you mean Israel's territory?
Frankly, I don't think I can see any way through this muck in our generation. There isn't a snowball's chance that Israel is going to give up Jerusalem, because they know what happened to the city before they took it - no Jews allowed, Jewish tombstones used to line latrines, the whole nine yards.

There is no fucking way that Israel is giving up the Golan Heights, because way too damn many people died in the Yom Kippur War.

There is equally little chance that Israel would ever consent to return to the 1967 borders, because giving up the West Bank leaves Israel far too vulnerable militarily, and its neighbors have tried to take advantage of that before.

So where exactly is the territory for a Palestinian state supposed to come from?

[Ace Pace]

It's pretty crazy when the political wing of an organization is less moderate than the military wing. How likely is Gaza to be included in this, anyway? Not that it will mean anything, since the bid will be vetoed by Obama.

Hamas has come out against the PLO's speech, making them an unknown winner in this equation. If there's a state, they win a chance to take over the West Bank, if the PLO loses, they gain more political appeal compared to the PLO.

Regarding the political/military wing, large parts of the political wing are based in Syria, and living far from the blockade over Gaza and the pretty crappy conditions. The military wing of Hamas lives in fear of IAF airstrikes (arbitrary as they may or not be) and general live pretty crappy lives.

[Thanas]

So where exactly is the territory for a Palestinian state supposed to come from?

From Israel. Where else?

[Lord Zentei]

So where exactly is the territory for a Palestinian state supposed to come from?

From Israel. Where else?

Let's consider for a moment. Why are the Jews in Israel in such numbers? Because of Zionism, sure, but that gained strong additional support due to the Holocaust. So ideally where should the Jewish homeland come from? From a place they don't want to return to.

But what to do about the Palestinians? They need a homeland of their own too... so here's and idea: the Palestinian homeland shall be East Prussia / Kaliningrad.

Think about it: they get a homeland of their own, which previously was from the territory of the country that's to blame for the Zionist invasion in the first place, and which is in a far less volatile part of the world.

This also resolves the Kaliningrad question, and the problem of Russia's non-contiguous territory. The USA would then pay Russia for the land, (1) absolving itself in part for its longstanding shenanigans with regards to IvP, and (2) finally not having to worry about that shit anymore and (3) the fundamentalists would be happy to see the West Bank become part of Greater Israel at last.


PS: if anyone thinks I'm being serious....

[eyl]

There is no fucking way that Israel is giving up the Golan Heights, because way too damn many people died in the Yom Kippur War.

Strictly speaking, the Heights don't really have anything to do with the Palestinians or their state.

Regarding the political/military wing, large parts of the political wing are based in Syria, and living far from the blockade over Gaza and the pretty crappy conditions. The military wing of Hamas lives in fear of IAF airstrikes (arbitrary as they may or not be) and general live pretty crappy lives.

It's a bit more complicated than that - rather than polticial wing/military wing, it's more useful to speak of Gaza-based and Syria-based Hamas; the political wing in Gaza is moderate relative to the political wing in Syria, while the military wing, which is heavily backed by the Syrian group, is somewhere in between the two political wings. Like you said, this is probably due to the Gaza-based groups having to actually live with the consequences of their actions, but the Gazan military wing is more extreme because of the support the Syrian wing gives them.

[Zaune]

Let's consider for a moment. Why are the Jews in Israel in such numbers? Because of Zionism, sure, but that gained strong additional support due to the Holocaust. So ideally where should the Jewish homeland come from? From a place they don't want to return to.

But what to do about the Palestinians? They need a homeland of their own too... so here's and idea: the Palestinian homeland shall be East Prussia / Kaliningrad.

Think about it: they get a homeland of their own, which previously was from the territory of the country that's to blame for the Zionist invasion in the first place, and which is in a far less volatile part of the world.

This also resolves the Kaliningrad question, and the problem of Russia's non-contiguous territory. The USA would then pay Russia for the land, (1) absolving itself in part for its longstanding shenanigans with regards to IvP, and (2) finally not having to worry about that shit anymore and (3) the fundamentalists would be happy to see the West Bank become part of Greater Israel at last.


PS: if anyone thinks I'm being serious....

Joking aside, that's almost mad enough to actually work. Kaliningrad probably isn't ideal, but there has to be at least one area of land big enough to support every Palestinian who wishes to leave but which nobody else wants.

[cosmicalstorm]

Isn't it blindingly obvious that the Palestinians will never get anything except a slow and steady expulsion? No matter what would be right, what is fair, what is the international law, they will not get this land of theirs.

They will continue to be moved to low quality land, their population will continue to starve, they will not be in control of any airports, waterways, harbors, trains, roads, electricity, wells, every essential aspect of a real economically viable country is denied.

They will continue to feed on unrealistic dreams and hate, brainwashing themselves into an ever deepening fever of hate and delusion.

To me the whole thing is an auto-catalytic process fed on hate, misery and violence where the end result is that what we know as Palestinians will be shifted to the fringes of Israel, emigrate to other parts of the Arab world or world in general.

It's a sad thing to watch. I think it will go on for decades.

[Bakustra]

Reading the Netanyahu speech transcript, it's disgusting the way he talks about the 2000 Camp David talks. Apparently his idea of giving Palestinians most of what they want consists of reducing them to an Israeli vassal, incapable of self-defense or of doing anything without Israeli approval, dependent on Israel for water, and officially blaming them for all Jewish refugees from states in the Middle East in the latter half of the twentieth century.

[Thanas]

Don't forget the "judenrein" comment. I am still steaming about that one.

[Bakustra]

Don't forget the "judenrein" comment. I am still steaming about that one.

Or, for that matter, the claim that the Right of Return is illegitimate for Palestinians because all Palestinian refugees willfully left Palestine so that all the Jews could be killed. It's frankly disturbing how much pro-Israeli propaganda is built around claiming their opponents are Nazis, either in equivalent or in fact. See, for example, the classification of Freedom Flotilla II as a "kill-the-Jews" flotilla.

[Guardsman Bass]

Isn't it blindingly obvious that the Palestinians will never get anything except a slow and steady expulsion? No matter what would be right, what is fair, what is the international law, they will not get this land of theirs.

They will continue to be moved to low quality land, their population will continue to starve, they will not be in control of any airports, waterways, harbors, trains, roads, electricity, wells, every essential aspect of a real economically viable country is denied.

They will continue to feed on unrealistic dreams and hate, brainwashing themselves into an ever deepening fever of hate and delusion.

To me the whole thing is an auto-catalytic process fed on hate, misery and violence where the end result is that what we know as Palestinians will be shifted to the fringes of Israel, emigrate to other parts of the Arab world or world in general.

It's a sad thing to watch. I think it will go on for decades.

That depends on how quickly the Demographic Transition affects the West Bank Palestinians, and their emigration rate. There's some evidence that they're already being hit with it, to the point where "just" the Arab Israelis and West Bank Palestinians combined would still end up as a minority in Israel Proper + West Bank. If they could pressure enough of the West Bank Palestinians to leave, then you'd end up with a poor, impoverished minority Arab population concentrated in a handful of reservations that can't do much.

Gaza is another matter (the birth rate is extremely high), but it's basically a dysfunctional micro-state already. Israel would just have to keep them from negatively affecting its southern territory, and isolated from the West Bank Palestinians.

[Molyneux]

So where exactly is the territory for a Palestinian state supposed to come from?

From Israel. Where else?

Yes, thank you, that's very unhelpful.
I asked a serious question. I can't think of any part of Israel's territory that they can give up without it being a massive security risk, largely because it's such a small country to start with. What part of Israeli territory can they reasonably (taking defense needs into consideration) be expected to give up to form a Palestinian state?

Personally, I just don't think that a two-state solution can work...maybe the only real way to fix this whole damn thing might be to try to fight Jewish/Arab racism on a long-term basis from both sides, with the eventual goal of integrating both populations into a single country. Of course, since that would require that both sides possess the ability to act like fucking adults, I tend to doubt that we'll be seeing it.

[Metahive]

Hey, maybe having to live with a greater security risk will finally force them to be less belligerent jackasses and actually consider working towards a lasting peace. I would totally considers this to be a net-positive.

[Thanas]

Yes, thank you, that's very unhelpful.
I asked a serious question. I can't think of any part of Israel's territory that they can give up without it being a massive security risk, largely because it's such a small country to start with. What part of Israeli territory can they reasonably (taking defense needs into consideration) be expected to give up to form a Palestinian state?

Too bad, so sad for Israel then.

Since when is "OMG, I might hypothetically have a harder to defend myself in the future from third-world countries not capable of attacking me, so I am going to continue ethnic cleansing, oppression and racism" a valid argument?

[Bakustra]

So where exactly is the territory for a Palestinian state supposed to come from?

From Israel. Where else?

Yes, thank you, that's very unhelpful.
I asked a serious question. I can't think of any part of Israel's territory that they can give up without it being a massive security risk, largely because it's such a small country to start with. What part of Israeli territory can they reasonably (taking defense needs into consideration) be expected to give up to form a Palestinian state?

Personally, I just don't think that a two-state solution can work...maybe the only real way to fix this whole damn thing might be to try to fight Jewish/Arab racism on a long-term basis from both sides, with the eventual goal of integrating both populations into a single country. Of course, since that would require that both sides possess the ability to act like fucking adults, I tend to doubt that we'll be seeing it.

Are you actually suggesting that Israel has annexed the West Bank and Gaza Strip into its territory? Because that's a very definite no-no! You can't suggest that Israel annexed those territories! That suggests expansionism!!

How do microstates like San Marino, Liechtenstein, Andorra, and Monaco defend themselves? Why, they rely on their good relationships with their neighbors. Israel itself is much larger than those states, being bigger than El Salvador, Lebanon, Slovenia, Macedonia, Singapore- all of which have functioning armies and are capable of self-defense. Now, while the West Bank would narrow Israel a great deal if it were to be returned to the people it was stolen from, one way that the defense concerns of this could be minimized would be to not insist on any future Palestinian state being completely defenseless. That way, the two nations could cooperate on defense- which is hardly less likely than a one-state solution at this point. This also presumes that Israel cannot have good relations with its neighbors. According to you, the US should invade Canada and annex sufficient portions of it to ensure a good defensive line. Would you support that here in the USA?

[Thanas]

Now, Bakustra, let's be reasonable. We all know that Palaestinians will never cooperate on defence.

However, there is no reason to assume that a nation like Israel, which is equipped for nearly free by all major US and European arms manufacturers will suddenly be incapable of defeating nations like Syria (whose army is too busy shooting deserters and civilians traitors), Egypt (guess who supplies their weapons), Saudi Arabia (ask Lonestar about the quality of the Saudi Army/Air force) or any other nation that is in the vicinity.

[Bakustra]

Now, Bakustra, let's be reasonable. We all know that Palaestinians will never cooperate on defence.

However, there is no reason to assume that a nation like Israel, which is equipped for nearly free by all major US and European arms manufacturers will suddenly be incapable of defeating nations like Syria (whose army is too busy shooting deserters and civilians traitors), Egypt (guess who supplies their weapons), Saudi Arabia (ask Lonestar about the quality of the Saudi Army/Air force) or any other nation that is in the vicinity.

They would in the magical fantasyland where people like Dov Lior don't exist and Iran didn't represent its Jewish minorities better than Israel does its Muslim minorities, aka the one in which a one-state solution would be workable.

You also have to keep in mind that the nations surrounding Israel, which is the only democracy in the Middle East, are all populated by violent, anti-Semitic barbarians who will stop at no ends to kill all Jews, and thus conventional estimations of strength do not work upon them. Indeed, one can only grant to Israel all the land it's grabbed since 1948 in order to ensure security for Israel, to keep it from perishing under the barbarian hordes.

[Setzer]

Who was it that said "Brave men are a city's strongest tower of defence?"
I agree with it wholeheartedly. Israel's military successfully defended the country before it reached its present borders, and it has only grown stronger since then.

[Thanas]

Alcaeus.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Israel already annexed the parts of the West Bank it wants. Now, since the Latrun Salient is completely absent of Arab population and is only in the West Bank because Glubb Pasha's Arab legion held it in '48 and it holds the roads to west Jerusalem, it's rather legitimate to say it would not be part of a Palestinian state. Likewise the two neutral zones, one south of west Jerusalem and one forming part of the Latrun Salient, should count as extant Israeli territory. The Mount Scopus area which was defended by a neutral zone and formed an Israeli enclave inside the West Bank at the end of '48 is contiguous with the annexed area of Jerusalem, and is legitimately Israeli. A partition of East Jerusalem is therefore necessary to produce a contiguous Israeli state; and makes the most sense, anyway. The old city should just be divided so that Palestine has the Muslim Quarter and the Dome of the Rock. The Wailing Wall is a Wall, why not make it the border there? I don't see any real situation except for a hair-splittingly painful neighbourhood by neighbourhood division of East Jerusalem which is going to be palatable. Otherwise it's obvious that the only acceptable border revisions are those which do not further dispossess any Palestinians; i.e., which create the most contiguous and defensible line for Israel possible without forcing a single Palestinian family to yet again be evicted.

This border should be drawn up by an independent commission and delivered to the West Bank government and Israel as an ultimatum. To soften the deal, the (except Israeli settlers) virtually uninhabited Golan Heights should be guaranteed as Israeli territory, since Israel has much more to be concerned about from a real country like Syria than a microstate like the West Bank. As a working compromise, Israel will control the airspace of the West Bank (and have total sovereignty over the Dead Sea, which is economically unproductive and provides a better defensive line to be patrolled along more of the Jordanian border), but the state will be allowed to maintain its own land forces When Israel accepts the borders, and so will not be demilitarized, which is a point of pride for the Palestinians. The countries presenting the terms will guarantee to use their offices to press all the Arab states to accept the deal and recognize Israel, and also guarantee the independence and sovereignty of the West Bank within its defined borders. This would exempt the Syrians from having to render compensation for expelled Jews, as a form of payment for the Golan Heights; the other Arab states which expelled their Jewish populations to Israel would provide compensation for doing so to the Palestinians in lieu of Israeli compensation to the Palestinians. The Right of Return would necessarily be abandoned. Other than Israeli control of airspace and the Dead Sea up to the limit of the shore, the West Bank would have total sovereignty. Indeed, those wouldn't count as part of the West Bank, say we define the West Bank as consisting of the territory described above "with airspace up to an altitude of 500 meters above ground level", and the border of the Potomac between Maryland and Virginia provides an example for one side totally controlling the Dead Sea.

Would this make anyone happy? No; it would be letting the Israelis get away with a great deal of robbery and annex more territory. But the facts on the ground would support such a solution--like the partition of Kashmir has slowly become the defacto most practical solution there between India and Pakistan, and however much we do not like it, in the long term Cyprus will probably become two states as time passes with no resolution. As for Gaza? I think it should become a separate country. The coastal arab populations are not at all like the mountain highland people of central Palestine in many respects, including dialect of Arabic. Gaza would become its own country with its own coastline and, because it's much less important and smaller, full control over its airspace, all of which would be necessary to approach the Hamas government, which will never accept the terms but can be unilaterally declared the independent City-State of Gaza by all involved.

The key would be for such terms to be delivered by a concert of world powers as an ultimatum without negotiation, the terms being just a sufficient salve to make the Israeli public actually have motivation to press their leaders to support them. They would be the "best offering" beyond which the world will promise only a withdraw of all support and international sanctions against Israel if they are not accepted -- a line drawn in the sand, and a generous line to make it easier to swallow, but an ultimatum nonetheless. Because only an ultimatum will end this conflict, and it is precisely that which Israeli has guaranteed by its dominant relationship with the US political scene is something that will never be issued. The moment the US were to allow such an ultimatum through the security council, a reasonable one, perhaps one would say too reasonable, the conflict would end. It is clear the Palestinians are willing to compromise (at least the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank) based on the released cables... There is now no more excuse toward the forcing of such a treaty, except that Israel does not wish to make peace.

[Norseman]

So where exactly is the territory for a Palestinian state supposed to come from?

From Israel. Where else?

Let's consider for a moment. Why are the Jews in Israel in such numbers? Because of Zionism, sure, but that gained strong additional support due to the Holocaust. So ideally where should the Jewish homeland come from? From a place they don't want to return to.

But what to do about the Palestinians? They need a homeland of their own too... so here's and idea: the Palestinian homeland shall be East Prussia / Kaliningrad.

Think about it: they get a homeland of their own, which previously was from the territory of the country that's to blame for the Zionist invasion in the first place, and which is in a far less volatile part of the world.

This also resolves the Kaliningrad question, and the problem of Russia's non-contiguous territory. The USA would then pay Russia for the land, (1) absolving itself in part for its longstanding shenanigans with regards to IvP, and (2) finally not having to worry about that shit anymore and (3) the fundamentalists would be happy to see the West Bank become part of Greater Israel at last.

It is telling that this joke would actually be far more likely to work out than many of the serious solutions proposed. In fact this has the additional benefits of giving the Palestinians developed infrastructure! Furthermore it allows the European Union to show their genuine and heartfelt concern for the Palestinians. It gives the Russians desperately needed funds and solves their territorial contingency issues. Yes, indeed I think this would be a great solution!

[Simon_Jester]

You also have to keep in mind that the nations surrounding Israel, which is the only democracy in the Middle East, are all populated by violent, anti-Semitic barbarians who will stop at no ends to kill all Jews, and thus conventional estimations of strength do not work upon them. Indeed, one can only grant to Israel all the land it's grabbed since 1948 in order to ensure security for Israel, to keep it from perishing under the barbarian hordes.

Are you familiar with the term "defensive depth," Bakustra?

See, it's not that I'm really inclined to dispute with you on the issues of ethics and ethnicity, and I don't even want to get into the way you represent opposing arguments.

What concerns me is that you seem sublimely indifferent to military matters. Not that you're factually right not to worry about them, but that you seem not to have given the matter enough thought to justify such a breezy dismissal. I mean, using San Marino as an example of how a small country can stay secure is really out there.

To me, it reads as if you're going: "Defensibility? Pish tosh, who needs defensibility when you can make your neighbors like you and cooperate with you on defense issues? What's this nonsense about 'holding the high ground?' And this bizarre raving about artillery range and air defense warning times? What are you talking about?"

To me, this cavalier approach to the issues of military security seems unrealistic. By ignoring it, you ignore a huge chunk of the reasons the Israelis themselves didn't long since quit trying to hold onto this territory in the first place.

How can your arguments be serious and relevant to the subject if you're not taking something like this seriously?

It would be like someone going on about the Palestinian side while dismissing matters like water rights. Even if someone suggested a more or less just solution, the Palestinians wouldn't want to accept it if it didn't give them a secure water source- you need water to live, and you can't take someone seriously if they're not willing to acknowledge your need for water.

By the same token, how can I take someone seriously when they dismiss military problems with seemingly little study and a few off-the-cuff analogies that don't seem to apply, when talking about a complex border dispute that has deep roots in a string of wars fought over that border?

[Thanas]

Would this make anyone happy? No; it would be letting the Israelis get away with a great deal of robbery and annex more territory.

Ergo, reward them and put the Palaestinians at the permanent mercy of the Israelis. No thanks. The 1967 boarders are enough already.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Would this make anyone happy? No; it would be letting the Israelis get away with a great deal of robbery and annex more territory.

Ergo, reward them and put the Palaestinians at the permanent mercy of the Israelis. No thanks. The 1967 boarders are enough already.

Because an army is insufficient to guarantee the liberty of a state? The trade of the West Bank will have to pass through Jordan even if they control their own airspace, how does that clause matter? How do you propose to get Israel to allow the creation of a genuinely sovereign West Bank with terms that are any less? Regardless, I do think that the Golan Heights will necessarily become part of sovereign Israel in any general peace deal; the land is very easily given up with little attendant human suffering and matter far more for Israel's defence than the West Bank ever will, which makes it a good bargaining chip to offer.

[Bakustra]

Simon, I see that you are not familiar with the most common reasons for rejecting the Palestinian Right of Return; one of them is exactly what I have described, though phrased slightly more politely or offensively in alternates.

Simon, Israel will only be able to hold on to the West Bank either through ethnic cleansing- forcing the overwhelming majority of the Palestinian inhabitants out, or through establishing absolute control over the West Bank and ending the sham authority of the Palestinian Authority. Either direction is unjust, though the settlement policy and attempts to delegitimize the concept of "Palestinian" as an ethnic group suggest that the crime against humanity is the more likely. Should Israel be allowed to exist, then, if it can only perpetuate itself through injustice? Imagine le Guin's Omelas, only this Omelas is highly discriminatory, with major issues in income and wealth disparity, and all the other problems that Israel has, and now imagine not one suffering child, but rather a hundred thousand children, living under a repressive regime that kills some of them every year. Imagine those hundred thousand being displaced into refugee camps and being essentially homeless for the rest of their lives, unless they're absurdly lucky. Is that a thing worth defending, or worth existing?

But I believe that Israel can in fact defend itself without relying on the crutch of injustice and oppression, and so the onus should be on Israel's defense forces to find a way that they can defend their nation without occupation and criminal behavior, and if they cannot, to start working out some way to dismantle Israel, as it would clearly then be an utter failure as a nation.