Israel Considering Saudi Peace Plan

[Anguirus]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081019/ap_ ... lestinians

JERUSALEM – Israeli leaders are seriously considering a dormant Saudi plan offering a comprehensive peace between Israel and the Arab world in exchange for lands captured during the 1967 war, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Sunday.

Barak said it may be time to pursue an overall peace deal for the region since individual negotiations with Syria and the Palestinians have made little progress.

Barak said he has discussed the Saudi plan with Prime Minister-designate Tzipi Livni, who is in the process of forming a new Israeli government, and that Israel is considering a response.

Saudi Arabia first proposed the peace initiative in 2002, offering pan-Arab recognition of Israel in exchange for Israel's withdrawal from Arab lands captured in 1967 — the West Bank, Gaza Strip, east Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.

The 22-member Arab League endorsed the plan last year.

Israel has said the plan is a good basis for discussion, but expressed some reservations.

"There is definitely room to introduce a comprehensive Israeli plan to counter the Saudi plan that would be the basis for a discussion on overall regional peace," Barak told Israel's Army Radio.

He noted the "deep, joint interest" with moderate Arab leaders in containing Iran's nuclear ambitions and limiting the influence of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.

While Israel's outgoing prime minister, Ehud Olmert, has welcomed the Saudi plan, he and other leaders want to keep small parts of the territories captured in 1967. Israel also objects to language that appears to endorse a large-scale return of Palestinian refugees to lands inside Israel. Israel says a massive influx of Palestinians would destroy the country's Jewish character.

Israel's ceremonial president, Shimon Peres, proposed putting Israel's various peace talks on one track last month at the United Nations, calling on Saudi King Abdullah to "further his initiative." He has since been pushing the idea in meeting with Israeli, Arab and Western officials, his office said.

While Peres has no formal role in Israeli foreign policy, he is a Nobel peace laureate and well respected in the international community.

In Sunday's interview, Barak said he was in full agreement with Peres.

"I had the impression that there is indeed an openness to explore any path, including this one," he said of his talks with Livni.

Barak, who leads the Labor Party, is expected to play a senior role in the next administration.

Livni's office refused to comment on her talks with Barak.

Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat noted that pursuing the Saudi peace initiative did not necessarily undermine the direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians and he encouraged Israel to pursue this track.

"I think Israel should have done this since 2002. It is the most strategic initiative that came from the Arab world since 1948," he said. "I urge them to revisit this initiative and to go with it because it will shorten the way to peace."

Someone who knows more about the situation on the ground than I do...is this just empty talk? Or could this actually fly? Is a Defense Minister of Israel "exploring" the idea of giving up the West Bank/Gaza even precedented?

[Guardsman Bass]

This type of plan has been floating around forever. The things that generally kill it are

A)Right of Return (basically, the right of Palestinians to return to their homes in Israel proper that were left behind in Israel's independence). This is a big No for Israel's government;

B)Issues over the settlements in the West Bank;

C)Concerns over whether the PA could actually form a cohesive government, and keep the radicals like Hamas from doing their own thing.

[Sea Skimmer]

The Golan Heights and West Bank can be dealt with, the Golan especially since Syria would take it over and thus it could not turn into a terrorist ruled hellhole. The issue of East Jerusalem though is virtually unresolvable. That’s why the original partition plan made it a free city under UN mandate, but no such arrangement is possible today if only because the UN just couldn’t and wouldn’t field an adequate security force until the end of time to guard it. The need for a stable government in the Palestinian territories that is both able to control militias AND control corruption enough that it can function day to day is also an enormous challenge. The right of return issue could probably be squashed if the Palestinians had a working government, and actually got the whole west bank.

[Guardsman Bass]

The Golan Heights and West Bank can be dealt with, the Golan especially since Syria would take it over and thus it could not turn into a terrorist ruled hellhole. The issue of East Jerusalem though is virtually unresolvable. That’s why the original partition plan made it a free city under UN mandate, but no such arrangement is possible today if only because the UN just couldn’t and wouldn’t field an adequate security force until the end of time to guard it. The need for a stable government in the Palestinian territories that is both able to control militias AND control corruption enough that it can function day to day is also an enormous challenge. The right of return issue could probably be squashed if the Palestinians had a working government, and actually got the whole west bank.

What's the geography of East Jerusalem versus Jerusalem proper? Could you just build a large security wall on the borderline between them, like what the US would do between certain neighborhoods in Baghdad?

I think the PA (in the West Bank, at least) has gotten better as of late at actually providing some security for the Palestinians living there, although I don't know what the economy of the area is like.

"Right of Return" is pretty tricky. Maybe you could set up some type of Compensation Fund as part of a working treaty, and just pay off those Palestinians who could actually present a viable claim to lost assets in the creation of Israel in 1948. It's not the same as full Right of Return, but they're never going to get that short of Israel absorbing the West Bank and Gaza strip into a secular state with equal rights.

[Faqa]

Note - Ehud Barak is more or less a lame duck in terms of pushing this through. He simply does not have the political power to get himself into a position to effect this change. No, Defense Minister isn't really enough.

Further, Likud are projected to win the next elections, and THEY are right-wing blowhards who will flatly refuse to give back the West Bank. There's a reason Ariel Sharon broke with them when he staged the Gaza pullout.

Remember, this is Israel - the politicians get decided, for the most part, by who served in the elite army units a decade or two ago, and the positions just shift around according to power plays.

This is all to my regret - because aside from the Right of Return(I'm sorry, but it's flat-out impossible), this is a very reasonable proposal. And Israel has too many vital challenges to it's survival facing it in the next decade to still be dealing with this.

[Gil Hamilton]

Why is a Right to Return for Palestinean refugees impossible? I'm sure there exist enough resources to find places for them to live and work within Israel.

[Sea Skimmer]

What's the geography of East Jerusalem versus Jerusalem proper? Could you just build a large security wall on the borderline between them, like what the US would do between certain neighborhoods in Baghdad?

Given enough bulldozers you can build a wall anywhere. However even with perfect walled security and no arms being smuggled in, who deals with massive riots of rock throwing and house burning?

I think the PA (in the West Bank, at least) has gotten better as of late at actually providing some security for the Palestinians living there, although I don't know what the economy of the area is like.

That is not really true, the PA has little power to do anything. The West Bank is quite because Hamas was never strong in the area, and its takeover of Gaza caused as backlash against what followers it does have. The economic is vertically nonexistence, people farm and grow dates, and that’s about it. The population is fucking exploding too. Many of the current cities in the west bank barely rated as villages in 1967.

"Right of Return" is pretty tricky. Maybe you could set up some type of Compensation Fund as part of a working treaty, and just pay off those Palestinians who could actually present a viable claim to lost assets in the creation of Israel in 1948. It's not the same as full Right of Return, but they're never going to get that short of Israel absorbing the West Bank and Gaza strip into a secular state with equal rights.

Unless the US pays for it compensation that will never ever happen, and frankly many people involved just wouldn't accept it anyway. The Palestinian right of return is a lot of bullshit anyway really, because it ignores the equally large number of Jews deliberately driven out of Arab countries and into Israel. The Arabs will never pay a cent to them, never give them their land back, and even if they did offer it up it would never be safe for them to go back. So a population exchange happened 60 years ago, people need to deal with it and move on, not demand a return to a past in which the land was litterally different (alot more desert, WAY fewer people)

Why is a Right to Return for Palestinean refugees impossible? I'm sure there exist enough resources to find places for them to live and work within Israel.

See above, nearly as many Jews got driven into Israel who had already been living in other Arab lands, this tends to make Isreal not give a shit about the issue. Furthermore, allowing a hoard of Palestinians (your talking about 1-2 million people going into a nation of 6 million) into Israel would upset the demographics of the country, and Israel is already fearful of its long term prospects because the Jewish population is increasing much more slowly then all the Arab populations around and within them. Its not going to ever happen. Its really amazing to take a look at maps of Gaza in 1967 vs. today when the place has been developed to approach being a single sprawling city. For all the very real oppression of the Palestinians, it sure hasn't stopped them from multiplying. In fact the Gaza strip has over 3.5% growth per year, which is close to three times the world average.

However any real progress requires destroying Hamas one way or another and establishing a single strong Palestinian governed. Until that happens any talk of peace is a sick joke, the Palestinian side just literally cannot negotiate at all right now.

[Faqa]

Why is a Right to Return for Palestinean refugees impossible? I'm sure there exist enough resources to find places for them to live and work within Israel.

It's technically possible, it's simply something that would completely change the character of Israel, making it another Arab-dominated state. Israel in it's current incarnation would simply not exist. Ergo, Israel as it stands will simply never accept it.

This is a state for the Jews, for better or worse. Allowing this massive migration makes it an Arab state. Whether you agree with the idea of a Jewish state or not, ACCEPT that the Jewish state itself will not agree to what amounts to suicide.

I'm not arguing right or wrong here - I'm explaining reality.

(For the record, though, a large amount of Palestinians ARE employed within Israel. They're simply not citizens.)

[Gil Hamilton]

It's technically possible, it's simply something that would completely change the character of Israel, making it another Arab-dominated state. Israel in it's current incarnation would simply not exist. Ergo, Israel as it stands will simply never accept it.

This is a state for the Jews, for better or worse. Allowing this massive migration makes it an Arab state. Whether you agree with the idea of a Jewish state or not, ACCEPT that the Jewish state itself will not agree to what amounts to suicide.

I'm not arguing right or wrong here - I'm explaining reality.

(For the record, though, a large amount of Palestinians ARE employed within Israel. They're simply not citizens.)

By that logic, you'd better cut all the Palestinian territories loose and forget about them, then deport many of your Israeli Arabs, because demographically, Israel is going to cease to be a "Jewish" nation anyway in somewhere less than two generations anyway even if the status quo last that long. Only racist jackasses would care if their state is Jewish or not, anyway, demanding that their government leaders MUST be Jewish is makes them no better than the mouthbreathers over here who think that America is a White Christian nation and must only be run by white Christians.

Besides, Israel forced many of those refugees out at gun point. If the people in question have a legitimate claim to the land, its only fair they get any land back that was taken from them. The Arab States on the other side that Sea Skimmer describes might not be so good, but it would prove that Israel is better than them and committed to undoing past mistakes. Actually displaying a willingness to make good on past grievances is the way to actually achieving something that resembles peace.

[Faqa]

By that logic, you'd better cut all the Palestinian territories loose and forget about them, then deport many of your Israeli Arabs, because demographically, Israel is going to cease to be a "Jewish" nation anyway in somewhere less than two generations anyway even if the status quo last that long.

You are absolutely, 100% correct. If Israel is to survive as a Jewish state, this is what must be done.

Only racist jackasses would care if their state is Jewish or not, anyway, demanding that their government leaders MUST be Jewish is makes them no better than the mouthbreathers over here who think that America is a White Christian nation and must only be run by white Christians.

Well, unlike America, Israel wasn't founded on freedom or tolerance or any of those things - it was founded on the idea of being a Jewish State. As I recall, America wasn't actually founded on the principle of being a Christian state. It simply happened to be founded by Christians, that's all.

Why a Jewish state? You have now trod into centuries of arguments and debates, with no one answer ever decided.

The biggest reason why? The Holocaust. Because clearly Jews were still fair game for persecution, no matter if they were rabbis or Christians with a Jewish grandmother. And NOBODY of consequence in the Western World was going to give a shit(there's a reason the exceptions are called Righteous Among The Nations). This was proven effectively. Very well - we will create a state that WILL give a shit next time. We will fight tooth and nail for that state, because it relates to directly to matters of our welfare, which clearly nobody else can be trusted with. That fact was spectacularly proven in the thirties.

Now, you might say, correctly, that there's plenty of persecuted groups that haven't got the same luxury. True. But if they had, I find it difficult to imagine their response would be any different. Jews just happen to have Awesome Jewery Powers, and the attempted genocide committed on us was in a modern era with sufficient documentation that can shove the horror of it into the faces of common man and get our way.

Besides, Israel forced many of those refugees out at gun point.

Some yes, some no. The statement is true enough for the purposes of what you're saying.

If the people in question have a legitimate claim to the land, its only fair they get any land back that was taken from them.

In an ideal world, yes. In an ideal world, so MANY things would have been done differently that I find it difficult to compare. Chief among them is that I find it difficult to believe Israel would need to exist.

Short version - it would destroy the Jewish state. Therefore, don't expect Israel to ever agree to it.

The Arab States on the other side that Sea Skimmer describes might not be so good, but it would prove that Israel is better than them and committed to undoing past mistakes. Actually displaying a willingness to make good on past grievances is the way to actually achieving something that resembles peace.

Displaying a willingness to make good on past grievances is one thing, and something that can be achieved by giving back the West Bank.

The Right Of Return goes far beyond that.

[Gil Hamilton]

You are absolutely, 100% correct. If Israel is to survive as a Jewish state, this is what must be done.

Or you could learn to live with your neighbors and give up the idea of Israel belonging to a single religious faith.

Well, unlike America, Israel wasn't founded on freedom or tolerance or any of those things - it was founded on the idea of being a Jewish State. As I recall, America wasn't actually founded on the principle of being a Christian state. It simply happened to be founded by Christians, that's all.

That's actually the argument the yahoos use, that it was founded as a white Christian nation, rather than what it was in reality.

Why a Jewish state? You have now trod into centuries of arguments and debates, with no one answer ever decided.

The biggest reason why? The Holocaust. Because clearly Jews were still fair game for persecution, no matter if they were rabbis or Christians with a Jewish grandmother. And NOBODY of consequence in the Western World was going to give a shit(there's a reason the exceptions are called Righteous Among The Nations). This was proven effectively. Very well - we will create a state that WILL give a shit next time. We will fight tooth and nail for that state, because it relates to directly to matters of our welfare, which clearly nobody else can be trusted with. That fact was spectacularly proven in the thirties.

Factually inaccurate, for one. Israel wasn't founded by Jews. It was legally founded by the British in conjunction with the United Nations, which, incidentally is why there are a whole bunch of really orthodox Hesedim in my hometown neighborhood that refuse to acknowledge the existence of the state of Israel (because it WASN'T founded by the Messiah or by Jews, like the book said it would be). The fact that Israel is a creation of the UN and largely exists on the good will/funding of the United States is important.

Secondly, the Holocaust was a genuinely terrible thing that happened, but that doesn't answer the question of why Israel has to be Jewish. You've given a red herring. The Holocaust isn't a good response to why should modern Israel must be run by people of a specific religion and of that the state itself should be dedicated to a specific religion. It's bad enough that the Middle East is full of states that do it with Islam to the exclusion of other religions. Why shouldn't Israel be a secular state and not give one whiff about who is in the government, so long as they hold good democratic and fair ideals and good at running a state, be they Jew, Muslim, or Progressive Rastafarian?

Whether or not the state of Israel should exist is not in dispute. I think it has the right to exist as much as I think Brazil does, because its a moot point now and factually exists. However, that's no reason that it needs to be a bigoted state that legislates a particular religion about all others and enacts policies against others who also live there too. As I said, people that say that Israel MUST be run exclusively by Jewish people is no better than the yahoos who think the United States MUST be run exclusively by white Christians and no one else is acceptable.

Some yes, some no. The statement is true enough for the purposes of what you're saying.

If it is true enough, then decent human beings right their wrongs, don't they?

In an ideal world, yes. In an ideal world, so MANY things would have been done differently that I find it difficult to compare. Chief among them is that I find it difficult to believe Israel would need to exist.

Short version - it would destroy the Jewish state. Therefore, don't expect Israel to ever agree to it.

Who cares if Israel is Jewish or not? In 25 years you are going to have to throw in the towel on that anyway, because Jews are becoming a minority there. Short of starting up a new apartheid state and expelling all the Arabs, that race has been run. The Israeli people need to have loyalty to their country, not to Judaism.

The point is a progressive and responsible government rights its wrongs. The other states in the Middle East may be shits, but Israel doesn't have to be. If they stole land from people who had a rightful claim to it, they should give it back. My own country has a tremendously shameful history with that, and I very much doubt you want to emulate it.

Displaying a willingness to make good on past grievances is one thing, and something that can be achieved by giving back the West Bank.

The Right Of Return goes far beyond that.

Except you didn't just force people out from the West Bank. People should get back the land that was taken from them, not just be refugees somewhere else or have a check cut for them. If Israel is serious about making good on past grievances, they have to do what is just and a Right to Return is just that.

[Elfdart]

Why is a Right to Return for Palestinean refugees impossible? I'm sure there exist enough resources to find places for them to live and work within Israel.

For the same reason that whites in South Africa and Mississippi didn't want blacks to be full citizens with the rights to life, liberty and property (which the right of return falls under).

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The Golan heights is very likely not to be returned by Israel because of its strategic importance. Anyone occupying that it can see miles around it; the Syrians cannot mobilise and catch the Israelis off guard like the last time.

[Ender]

So on the topic of Right Of Return, we get a good discussion of the economic and demographic issues from Sea Skimmer, a good discussion of Israeli politics, culture, and historical ideology from Faqa, and a knee-jerk one liner from Elfdart that is itself a stereotype. Let's keep that standard N&P level of discourse guys.

[Elfdart]

So on the topic of Right Of Return, we get a good discussion of the economic and demographic issues from Sea Skimmer, a good discussion of Israeli politics, culture, and historical ideology from Faqa, and a knee-jerk one liner from Elfdart that is itself a stereotype. Let's keep that standard N&P level of discourse guys.

The failure of a knee to jerk means a loss of nerve, as well as brain activity.

The point is that in states where being a member of an ethnic or religious group grants you certain rights that those people don't have (being beneath you and all), the people in the dominant position aren't about to give up their privileged status voluntarily. It was true in Mississippi (and still is true in some respects), South Africa and in Israel.

That's why a Right of Return for Palestinians is not likely.

[Darth Wong]

So on the topic of Right Of Return, we get a good discussion of the economic and demographic issues from Sea Skimmer, a good discussion of Israeli politics, culture, and historical ideology from Faqa, and a knee-jerk one liner from Elfdart that is itself a stereotype. Let's keep that standard N&P level of discourse guys.

I don't see how Faqa's casual endorsement of the idea of ethnically cleansing Israel with forced deportations of all non-Jews is something that could be considered "a good discussion" of any sort. Would you be as forgiving of an American white supremacist who proposed deporting anyone of Mexican descent, as long as he accurately described his bigotry?

[Alyrium Denryle]

So on the topic of Right Of Return, we get a good discussion of the economic and demographic issues from Sea Skimmer, a good discussion of Israeli politics, culture, and historical ideology from Faqa, and a knee-jerk one liner from Elfdart that is itself a stereotype. Let's keep that standard N&P level of discourse guys.

I don't see how Faqa's casual endorsement of the idea of ethnically cleansing Israel with forced deportations of all non-Jews is something that could be considered "a good discussion" of any sort. Would you be as forgiving of an American white supremacist who proposed deporting anyone of Mexican descent, as long as he accurately described his bigotry?

From what I read of his post he was not so much endorsing it, as saying that for the goal of maintaining a jewish state it would need to eventually be done. In fact he specifically addressed that that is exactly what he was doing. Explaining what was, not prescribing what should be. He is an israeli jew, and thus spoke in the first person plural for the historical narrative. But he did not endorse ethnic cleansing.

[Darth Wong]

So on the topic of Right Of Return, we get a good discussion of the economic and demographic issues from Sea Skimmer, a good discussion of Israeli politics, culture, and historical ideology from Faqa, and a knee-jerk one liner from Elfdart that is itself a stereotype. Let's keep that standard N&P level of discourse guys.

I don't see how Faqa's casual endorsement of the idea of ethnically cleansing Israel with forced deportations of all non-Jews is something that could be considered "a good discussion" of any sort. Would you be as forgiving of an American white supremacist who proposed deporting anyone of Mexican descent, as long as he accurately described his bigotry?

From what I read of his post he was not so much endorsing it, as saying that for the goal of maintaining a jewish state it would need to eventually be done. In fact he specifically addressed that that is exactly what he was doing. Explaining what was, not prescribing what should be. He is an israeli jew, and thus spoke in the first person plural for the historical narrative. But he did not endorse ethnic cleansing.

Somehow, it seems to me that is one speaks about the goal of ensuring a White America, that he would have to take much greater pains to state his condemnation of the idea than someone who does the same for Jewish Israel, who can leave it vague whether he actually thinks this is a righteous thing to do.

[NomAnor15]

-snip-
Secondly, the Holocaust was a genuinely terrible thing that happened, but that doesn't answer the question of why Israel has to be Jewish. You've given a red herring. The Holocaust isn't a good response to why should modern Israel must be run by people of a specific religion and of that the state itself should be dedicated to a specific religion. It's bad enough that the Middle East is full of states that do it with Islam to the exclusion of other religions. Why shouldn't Israel be a secular state and not give one whiff about who is in the government, so long as they hold good democratic and fair ideals and good at running a state, be they Jew, Muslim, or Progressive Rastafarian? -snip-

Right, because the US (one of these wonderful secular states you're referring to) did such a good job of helping Jews during the Holocaust. You sir, are an idiot.

[Darth Wong]

-snip-
Secondly, the Holocaust was a genuinely terrible thing that happened, but that doesn't answer the question of why Israel has to be Jewish. You've given a red herring. The Holocaust isn't a good response to why should modern Israel must be run by people of a specific religion and of that the state itself should be dedicated to a specific religion. It's bad enough that the Middle East is full of states that do it with Islam to the exclusion of other religions. Why shouldn't Israel be a secular state and not give one whiff about who is in the government, so long as they hold good democratic and fair ideals and good at running a state, be they Jew, Muslim, or Progressive Rastafarian? -snip-

Right, because the US (one of these wonderful secular states you're referring to) did such a good job of helping Jews during the Holocaust. You sir, are an idiot.

So ... the US was anti-Semitic in 1940, therefore Israel needs to be a racist state in 2008? How does that follow?

[Faqa]

Factually inaccurate, for one. Israel wasn't founded by Jews. It was legally founded by the British in conjunction with the United Nations, which, incidentally is why there are a whole bunch of really orthodox Hesedim in my hometown neighborhood that refuse to acknowledge the existence of the state of Israel (because it WASN'T founded by the Messiah or by Jews, like the book said it would be). The fact that Israel is a creation of the UN and largely exists on the good will/funding of the United States is important.

Mea culpa. The fact remains that it exists BECAUSE of the Jewish national movement and much campaigning thereof. Jews didn't found it, but they are responsible for it's founding.

Secondly, the Holocaust was a genuinely terrible thing that happened, but that doesn't answer the question of why Israel has to be Jewish. You've given a red herring. The Holocaust isn't a good response to why should modern Israel must be run by people of a specific religion and of that the state itself should be dedicated to a specific religion. It's bad enough that the Middle East is full of states that do it with Islam to the exclusion of other religions. Why shouldn't Israel be a secular state and not give one whiff about who is in the government, so long as they hold good democratic and fair ideals and good at running a state, be they Jew, Muslim, or Progressive Rastafarian?

You missed the point of what I was trying to say - the Holocaust was hardly unique, nor does it justify the existence of a Jewish state. But it DOES explain why Jews will fight tooth and nail against integration with the Arabs. Because if you do, what was the point of it in the first place?

This is besides the part where, frankly, there's too much bad blood in this region for anyone to want to give a large chunk of Arabs effective power over the fate of Jews in Israel just now.

Whether or not the state of Israel should exist is not in dispute. I think it has the right to exist as much as I think Brazil does, because its a moot point now and factually exists. However, that's no reason that it needs to be a bigoted state that legislates a particular religion about all others and enacts policies against others who also live there too. As I said, people that say that Israel MUST be run exclusively by Jewish people is no better than the yahoos who think the United States MUST be run exclusively by white Christians and no one else is acceptable.

...

Who cares if Israel is Jewish or not? In 25 years you are going to have to throw in the towel on that anyway, because Jews are becoming a minority there. Short of starting up a new apartheid state and expelling all the Arabs, that race has been run. The Israeli people need to have loyalty to their country, not to Judaism.

...

The point is a progressive and responsible government rights its wrongs. The other states in the Middle East may be shits, but Israel doesn't have to be. If they stole land from people who had a rightful claim to it, they should give it back. My own country has a tremendously shameful history with that, and I very much doubt you want to emulate it.

Again, I'd love for this to be actually applicable. However, in a world where what you said was realistically possible, Israel would probably not exist at all. It wouldn't have to.

Give us time, though. The country is secularizing, and as the religious sector gets more and more obnoxious, people are inclined to cut it less and less slack. Foreign workers are being given citizenship - people with a loyalty to Israel OUTSIDE of Judaism, people who simply see it as a place where they can make a better life. This is hope.

Now, I'm pessimistic in this regard, because if Arab demographics don't get us, the Orthodox ones sure as fuck will. As they get more extreme, their tendency to treat vaginas like clown cars gets ever more pronounced. And THEY, needless to say, are suicidal idiots.

Regardless, dumping several million angry refugees on us is NOT a productive action

Also, have you considered the fact this would displace large amounts of Israelis? You do know that whatever areas the Palestinians see fit to claim for themselves is probably occupied? Do you actually think this will even remotely help stability or peace in the area?

Short answer - no. It would probably just result in a NEW group of disgruntled, angry people. It's one thing when the property has been out of your hands for say, six years - it's still possible to verify claims with more accuracy then, not to mention the fact you are still dealing with the original parties on each side. HERE, we are talking second or third generation for the most part. "Clusterfuck" is the best-case scenario here.

I'm not saying displacement CAN'T be an option - I support evacuating the West Bank of settlers, for example. Completely. But that's because being able to cede an empty West Bank to the Arabs is an enormous advantage to Israel and will actually promote peace. Not to mention it won't destroy Israel. The Right Of Return will.

Except you didn't just force people out from the West Bank. People should get back the land that was taken from them, not just be refugees somewhere else or have a check cut for them. If Israel is serious about making good on past grievances, they have to do what is just and a Right to Return is just that.

What happens when you have a choice between doing the 'right' thing(leaving aside the fact that it's not nearly so cut-and-dry) and... continuing to exist? Because, as I have explained earlier, the Right Of Return will turn Israel into a predominantly Arab country. A country where Jews are a minority once more, and after generations of bad blood between Jews and Arabs.

You seriously can't see why no Israeli wants this to happen?

Maybe a full secularization MIGHT have a chance in the future, though I doubt it, but THIS way it will sure as fuck not happen.

Look, short version - Israel is a racist state. In case you were in doubt on that. It's main reason for existing is because OF racial persecution of a particular group that has enough power, influence and documented atrocities(as opposed to less documented ones of centuries past against many OTHER groups) to get the UN to grant them a state after a century of pushing for it. That's the central mandate of the nation(as much of one as we have, anyway...). The world is still Not A Nice Place, so we don't feel the need to give up the bulwark we currently have against the anti-Semites. Ergo, the Right Of Return is not an option Israel will consider. Not to mention that the practical difficulties of it, compounded with the harm caused, seal the deal.

It sucks to be a part of the group calling itself "Palestinian". It really does. And they deserve their own state. But not any land inside 1948 borders. Sorry, this country isn't committing suicide so they can feel better.

The point is that in states where being a member of an ethnic or religious group grants you certain rights that those people don't have (being beneath you and all), the people in the dominant position aren't about to give up their privileged status voluntarily. It was true in Mississippi (and still is true in some respects), South Africa and in Israel.

That's why a Right of Return for Palestinians is not likely.

Hmmm. That is actually more sensible than your previous statement, which I intended to ignore. Yay for preview buttons!

It is, of course, partially that. Although it's not so much preferential treatment as being a country that looks after the interests of Jews. Because someone clearly has to, and no one was. I don't think white folks have this problem, yes?

However, ending Apartheid != Right Of Return. Simply because apartheid involved giving all residents of South Africa equal rights, whereas we are talking about not allowing displaced people who currently reside elsewhere to return several generations after the fact.

Let's put it this way - if we were to go to Jordan and demand the return of lands bought by Jewish organizations back in the early 20th century, opening them for Jewish settlement? They would have quite sufficient reasons to say no, many of them similar to Israel's problem here.

I don't see how Faqa's casual endorsement of the idea of ethnically cleansing Israel with forced deportations of all non-Jews is something that could be considered "a good discussion" of any sort. Would you be as forgiving of an American white supremacist who proposed deporting anyone of Mexican descent, as long as he accurately described his bigotry?

Alyrium got it about right. Although it's worth pointing out that we are mainly talking about not correcting a PARTIALLY forced deportation from decades back.

Also, I feel the need to repeat, because this point keeps getting overlooked, and it's vital to understanding things out here - Israel was NOT founded on the idea of equal rights for all, nor was it founded as a bastion of freedom. We fall more in line with Western ethics because the people running this place were of European descent and upbringing. But we weren't founded on them, and in a perfect world, a place like Israel SHOULD not exist. Shit, it's not even fair to, say, Gypsies, that we exist in this world, because one imagines they have also had to eat a LOT of shit in their time(I concede my ignorance on the history there and may be totally wrong) with no compensation to show for it. Probably because it is not practical nor correct to give every persecuted minority their own country.

But we DO exist. And in that context, Israel as it currently exists has good and sufficient reason to not accept the Right Of Return FOR IT'S OWN SURVIVAL.

And no, I don't think this has anything to do with righteousness. This history of this area and this conflict is very very ugly, and neither side can claim innocence.

[Plekhanov]

Well, unlike America, Israel wasn't founded on freedom or tolerance or any of those things - it was founded on the idea of being a Jewish State. As I recall, America wasn't actually founded on the principle of being a Christian state. It simply happened to be founded by Christians, that's all.

The US was founded as a white supremacist slave owning state, in your world does this magically mean that the Confederates were right?

Why a Jewish state? You have now trod into centuries of arguments and debates, with no one answer ever decided.

The biggest reason why? The Holocaust.

So the originators of Zionism in the 19th century and all those Zionists who moved to Palestine and began setting up their racist state well before the Nazi holocaust were all psychic were they?

Because clearly Jews were still fair game for persecution, no matter if they were rabbis or Christians with a Jewish grandmother. And NOBODY of consequence in the Western World was going to give a shit(there's a reason the exceptions are called Righteous Among The Nations). This was proven effectively. Very well - we will create a state that WILL give a shit next time. We will fight tooth and nail for that state, because it relates to directly to matters of our welfare, which clearly nobody else can be trusted with. That fact was spectacularly proven in the thirties.

Now, you might say, correctly, that there's plenty of persecuted groups that haven't got the same luxury. True. But if they had, I find it difficult to imagine their response would be any different. Jews just happen to have Awesome Jewery Powers, and the attempted genocide committed on us was in a modern era with sufficient documentation that can shove the horror of it into the faces of common man and get our way.

And just where in the world are Jews most hated now? And where are they accepted?

By forcibly moving into a densely populated part of the world and proceeding to treat the indigenous population like shit Zionists have ensured that for the foreseeable future they’ll be surrounded by embittered enemies. They are basically doing everything they can to build up and continually reinforce anti-semitism into the current and future generations of Arabs who at some point will inevitably acquire WMD. What possible good do you think can come of this?

Displaying a willingness to make good on past grievances is one thing, and something that can be achieved by giving back the West Bank.

The Right Of Return goes far beyond that.

And Israel’s ethnically cleansing 700,000 Palestinians from their homes and refusing to let them return or compensate them for the loss of their land isn’t a legitimate ‘past grievance’ why exactly?

[NomAnor15]

No. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I'm simply saying that a Jewish state is necessary to the survival of the Jewish people. The example of the US is intended to demonstrate that in a tight corner, even the nations that profess to be the most tolerant will abandon the Jews to their fate. On the other hand, the presence of a Jewish state guarantees that there will be at least one last resort, even if even if every other country on Earth turns their backs on us.

[NomAnor15]

No. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I'm simply saying that a Jewish state is necessary to the survival of the Jewish people. The example of the US is intended to demonstrate that in a tight corner, even the nations that profess to be the most tolerant will abandon the Jews to their fate. On the other hand, the presence of a Jewish state guarantees that there will be at least one last resort, even if even if every other country on Earth turns their backs on us.

Sorry for the double post, but I felt that I needed to clarify that this was directed at DW's post. Two people managed to get in some pretty long ones before I got this up. Whoops.

[Plekhanov]

No. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I'm simply saying that a Jewish state is necessary to the survival of the Jewish people. The example of the US is intended to demonstrate that in a tight corner, even the nations that profess to be the most tolerant will abandon the Jews to their fate. On the other hand, the presence of a Jewish state guarantees that there will be at least one last resort, even if even if every other country on Earth turns their backs on us.

Really so you think the ‘survival of the Jewish people’ is advanced by cramming as many Jewish people as possible into a small piece of land and then doing pretty much everything possible to ensure the enmity of the surrounding populations who outnumber the Jews by several orders of magnitude and who one day will inevitably acquire WMD?