6 ms·
At the moment, the two sides only agree on wishing the other dead. So even in the ideal world it is a very remote possibility.
by alkyon 1y ago
At the moment, the two sides only agree on wishing the other dead. So even in the ideal world it is a very remote possibility.
- Balgair 1y agoI also think we passed the window for a two state solution. Having two ethno-nationalist states next to each other is bad. Giving them a very complicated border is worse. Having them hate each other with centuries of history and territory claims is even worse still. Then giving them both, let alone one, access to the global arms market is asking for never ending wars of annihilation. If you could design a situation that was maximally terrible for neighboring states, the two state solution would be it.
- ckemere 1y agoIt is unclear to me that Palestinians represent an “ethnonationalist” block. My understanding is that the definition of “Jewish” for the purposes of immigration to Israel is a somewhat precise combination of genealogical or religious criteria. But I don’t know of an equivalent definition for Palestinian. Can someone educate me on this? In the absence of such a definition, it seems that the primary conflict is whether Palestine should be specifically designated as a home for all “Jews” or merely as a home for the people that currently live there. Again - I’d love further education about legal definitions.
- JumpCrisscross 1y agoAny ethnonationalist definition is inherently subjective and thus inherently fuzzy. It’s an exercise that derives from a time when some thought one could scientifically classify races.
- ckemere 1y agoMy point was that AFAIK, Palestinians would include Jews in the potential citizens of a Palestine. So that the conflict is not between two ethnonationalist groups. There certainly is rhetoric around the ethnic origin of some Israeli citizens being Northern European rather than middle eastern, so perhaps the original claim has some validity.
- Balgair 1y agoI guess I meant it as more of a longer term solution. In that, given a few years/decades of a two state solution, you'd have a partition occur, whether by force as was in India/Pakistan, or by more natural processes over time. Honestly, I could see a partition occur as a condition for a two state solution. One side for the muslims, one for the jews. I guess I should amend my comment to say theocratic ethno-nationalist / ethno-religious states, but I am likely messing up my greek/Plato (?) here. Suffice to say, the state of Palestine would have a super majority of muslim Palestinian citizen voters (currently-ish 87%, ~6M people total, though hard to define really), and the state of Israel would have a slight majority of jewish citizen voters (currently 48% jewish, 48% arab, ~14M people total, but Israeli Arab enfranchisement is a thing). Though 'steady state' numbers would likely shift the voting blocs towards the representative religions due to some partitioning as I described. Just FYI, there are about 6.3M jews and 4.5M muslims in the US currently. The total numbers of jews and palestinians that would be 'in theatre' is hard to determine, but think about 8M jews and about 9M palestinians for guestimations. So, I think I'm on pretty stable ground calling the likely resultant two state solution an ethno-religious solution. Other commenters are right in that the definition of 'nation' is a bit difficult with these two groups. Look either way, the two state solution is like, maximally bad. Having these two people with their histories and hatreds literally sharing walls is just crazy as it stands. Then giving them both access to the global arms market, let alone just Israel, is so crazy. And no, I haven't the foggiest idea what the hell to do. No one does.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> Having two ethno-nationalist states next to each other is bad. Giving them a very complicated border is worse This is the history of the Levant going back millennia.
- Apocryphon 1y agoBased on what? The concept of nations is perhaps two centuries old at best. It is true that there are many differing groups of people living in that area, but they were often simply under the dominion of one imperial power or another. This pat caricature is the equivalent of shrugging one's shoulders and saying "well that's how it's always been."
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> concept of nations is perhaps two centuries old at best Concept of nation states. Nations and states, separately, are an older concept. > they were often simply under the dominion of one imperial power or another For millennia. Often because inter-ethnic conflicts required an external security guarantor to keep a lid on the chaos. One could argue this history of chaos goes back to the Hittites and Bronze Age collapse.
- Apocryphon 1y agoDuring the times there was an external security guarantor, conflict would by definition go down (assuming the external power was sufficiently potent and stable). So you can't say that both chaos and dominion were happening simultaneously at all times. > One could argue this history of chaos goes back to the Hittites and Bronze Age collapse. And one could claim that the history of chaos in Central Europe goes back to the dissolution of the Carolingian Empire, or the Ostsiedlung, or perhaps even before the Romans made contact with the Germani.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> you can't say that both chaos and dominion were happening simultaneously at all times Nobody said this. > one could claim that the history of chaos in Central Europe goes back to the dissolution of the Carolingian Empire, or the Ostsiedlung, or perhaps even before the Romans made contact with the Germani Well, yes. It’s a nexus of navigable waterways. It has taken millennia of negotiating, atrocity and—ultimately—an external security guarantor twinned with mutual forgiveness to attain, for a short period, peace.
- DrillShopper 1y agoThe only reason the Palestinians are considered "ethno-nationalist" is that they are opposing a facist, genocidal, actually ethno-nationalist state that has spread its propaganda that any disagreement on any grounds is anti-semitism. It's ridiculous and I know the moment I see someone dig into their bag of slander with that they are not arguing in good faith. JIDF out in force again.
- halflife 1y agoPalestinian are not ethno nationalists, they are a theocracy. And as a secular Israeli I would really not like to live under one.
- Balgair 1y agoHey, I know this a rando internet commenter here, but what do you think is the solution then? To me, adding more money and guns into this conflict sounds like a really bad idea. But I'm not there and I'm just a fool as a result. I'm honestly asking and not just trolling, really. I'd love your perspective.
- halflife 1y agoIdeally? Palestinian accepting the existence of Israel, foregoing their demands for the right to return and East Jerusalem, and then we can peacefully coexist. Realistically? Maintaining strong border security, erect more walls, prevent Palestinians from crossing into Israel, legally or illegally, control any gate they have with the outside to prevent smuggling of weapons. Regarding the hostages? Besiege Gaza until they are returned.
- DrillShopper 1y agoI can't wait until the US government cuts Israel off from the weapons teet and tells them to fight their genocidal wars of aggression with their own money instead of the American taxpayer's money.
- js8 1y agoHonestly, I wouldn't ask Israelis or Palestinians for their opinion. I think the OSN should mandate and using peace forces: - Establish a new, transitional government of Israel/Palestine, nominated by the UN - Give citizenship to every Israeli and Palestinian for the whole territory - Mandate a 50/50 ethnic quotas system in the military, police, judiciary and all government institutions, and minimum 30% ethnic quotas in every other employer - Create a Truth and Reconcilliation Commission, modeled after JAR; it would figure out what reparations are needed to each citizen - Mandate both hebrew and arabic as official languages, and teach every kid both in school - Once things would settle down, after 1-2 years, run a new elections but with constitutional provisions (5-10 years) against dismantling the quotas Heck, even US could do this unilaterally (just like British did), if they wanted to pursue human rights.
- nradov 1y agoWhat a silly, unrealistic idea. No other country or coalition is going to launch a violent ground invasion of Israel and Palestine in order to impose peace terms on them. Protecting human rights in other countries is not our responsibility. They'll have to solve their own disputes one way or another.
- js8 1y agoNo ground invasion is needed, not even serious economic sanctions for non-compliance. Just a simple phone call from American president, that Israelis are now free to fend themselves from "hostile Arabs", without US military aid (there's a precedent btw). After all, it's Israel's own responsibility to protect human rights, isn't it?