ForumGarden

I think I worded the thread title uncontroversially, I do hope so.

I'm talking about that patch of ground which includes the Gaza Strip, the place south of Lebanon down through the Negev as far as Aqaba and bordering Jordan, the entire territory currently administered by the Israeli government. What you might loosely call Israel and Palestine if that weren't too loaded an expression full of assumptions.

Some of the inhabitants are recognised by the State of Israel as Jews, the rest aren't. The State of Israel apportions rights to the former which aren't granted to the latter, chief among which are the right of movement within the territory, the right to own land within the territory and the right, extended even to people across the planet as a whole, to be granted citizenship of the State.

A just settlement requires, I think, a common law for all citizens. Even within the State of Israel that common law currently doesn't exist, even if we ignore the question of the Palestinian inhabitants of the territory who have been denied Israeli citizenship.

Segregating the Palestinians into a separate State of Palestine provides them with citizenship and grants them equal rights with everyone else in that State. So long as the State of Palestine has control over who enters its territory and who controls its foreign policy then that goes a long way toward righting existing inequities.

Alternatively, retaining a single State within the territory, and even calling it Israel, goes a long way toward righting existing inequities so long as all the inhabitants have citizenship with equal rights before the law of the State.

Either works perfectly well as a solution.

Traditional demands to the sole occupancy of the territory by Zionists is often based on God's covenant to Abraham in Genesis 15, "On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abraham saying, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates". I note merely that if this promise is the basis of the modern State of Israel then the boundaries demanded by the State would extend a long way further into Egypt, Jordan, Syria and indeed Iraq than they currently do. If the modern Jewish State is settling for less then it can settle just as easily for the pre-1967 borders as for anything else, since God's covenant isn't on the table. Neither, indeed, did God ever come up with the goods in any earlier manifestation of the State; Judah and Israel always had to put up with less territory than the covenant promised.

So, is the solution to grant full and equal citizenship to all the inhabitants, to make all the laws of Israel blind to race, religion and ethnicity? Or is the solution to retain a non-blind state called Israel and to partition the territory with a new state called Palestine? Or would we prefer to keep the status quo?

The only two groups that can settle this is the palestinians and the israelis. Until both sides get fed up and settle things one way or the other this will just rumble on and on.

posted by spot

A just settlement requires, I think, a common law for all citizens. Even within the State of Israel that common law currently doesn't exist, even if we ignore the question of the Palestinian inhabitants of the territory who have been denied Israeli citizenship.




I suppose one option might be to get an international court to arbitrate but since Israelis and the US don't recognise the jurisdiction international courts unless it suits them that is not likely in the near future -or maybe never. The alternative to a peaceful settlement is warfare-terrorist warfare since one side is weaker than the other.

Terrorism has worked for the Palestinians, without it their state and their plight remained unknown to the indifferent wider world and their state would have been quietly subsumed one way or the other by now. Whether it is still a viable course of action is debatable-I would say not. How to move on is a question I have no answers to.

I have worked in a United Jewish Federationn Building for the past 6 years(I am catholic). I listen to conversations on this very subject daily. I'm not sure there will ever be a solution to this. Jester might have the only way to resolve it. It is a shame because it is a beautiful part of the world that peace is so far reaching.

[QUOTE]Lets take it from both of them, like kids that cant share a piece of cake...

Jordan can take back the majority of thier 'palestinians', the rest can go to other countries where thier last know relative is.

We can give the Israelis the state of Utah, since they are pretty much our children in most peoples eyes.

And we can lay waste to the land, nuke it every 50 years until no body can use it ever. Thats a kin to flushing the cake down the toilet.

Case closed.[/QUOTE]

I put what I think is a very succinct question in the OP here and it failed to get a discussion. Maybe someone might chew on it if I bring it back into view?

You say that, I suspect, because the Israelis have a fully-equipped army and air force deeply subsidized by the US and can hit from a safe distance, while the Palestinians have not so much as a single tank, APC, helicopter or jet fighter and rely on small arms and unguideable whizzbang rockets that (last time I counted and as a demonstration of their impotence) had killed all of three Israelis in the last twelve months. That's not fighting, nor a capacity to fight, in any meaningful sense.

Jester;822097 wrote: I say that because its the right and best thing to do and what should have been done in the first place. Surely the right and just thing to do is to forbid all systems of apartheid. Where else is it tolerated other than in Israel?

Some of the inhabitants are recognised by the State of Israel as Jews, the rest aren't. The State of Israel apportions rights to the former which aren't granted to the latter, chief among which are the right of movement within the territory, the right to own land within the territory and the right, extended even to people across the planet as a whole, to be granted citizenship of the State.

I copied that from the OP. It's a definition of Israeli apartheid. The practice includes a pretty good approximation of the old South African pass laws and great difficulty in passing from one Palestinian enclave to another, even if there are no Jews-only bits between them.

Of course not, it's apartheid because it has one set of laws for Jews and another set for non-Jews, just as the US and South Africa used to have one set of laws for whites and another set for blacks.

It's a fairly bizarre turn of events how Israel transformed a persecuted society into the oppressors. The longer it goes on, the harder it is to see them as victims. That anyone can still feel sorry for Israelis shocks me.

Of course it's another case of disliking the government and not the citizens. There are some Jewish Israelis who do everything in their power to help the Arabs who are suffering.

As to the OP; It doesn't seem logical in this "day and age" to recommend a modern state practice apartheid or maintain racist laws.

koan;822444 wrote: As to the OP; It doesn't seem logical in this "day and age" to recommend a modern state practice apartheid or maintain racist laws.


Jester notes that "obviously it's up to Israel to grant whomever they want to have rights. Same as in the US" but I note that the US no longer has Jim Crow laws any longer. Where did "Same as in the US" come from?

This has nothing to do with immigration, Jester. This is to do with, among others, communities which are still farming land which has been farmed by their families since long before 1948 and the creation of Israel, in areas which until 1967 were nothing to do with the new State at all.