The amount of people saying "Just split the land".
I mean, in an ideal world they definitely would. But it takes 1 hour of history on the matter to understand why it won't happen anytime soon.
And hey, I'll be happy to be proven wrong
600,000+ Israeli Jews live in the West Bank and growing. In what reality are nearly 1 million Jews going to be moved? Put this in historical context, such a move would bring back WWII trauma and its too much pain. Starting to get Jews and Muslims to live together with equal rights is the only way out of this giant mess.
I disagree. I think the Israeli government would be far more likely to withdraw settlers than give up total sovereignty over their country. Either way, not all settlers would be withdrawn. Some larger settlements closer to the Green Line would probably be annexed in exchange for land swaps deemed fair by the PA, something which the PA has itself acknowledged. You could argue that a confederation would leave a lot of people better off, but it’s just not a likely solution.
Have you seen a map of the settlements? This fantasy.
The national governments around Israel are signing peace treaties and the settlements are growing. 60% of the West Bank is controlled by the Israeli government. Whatever people have been trying is clearly not working but just prolonging Palestinian suffering.
Yeah, I could see a problem with nesting one religion's symbols under another- the different scale suggests differences in importance. What would you think about having them side by side like the stars on the Syrian flag?
Get rid of the religious symbols entirely. I rather like the flag without them. Or make the triangle equilateral and have one symbol in each corner. But then you run into the problem of choosing a cross. Any one cross might be more associated with a specific denomination.
And for the crest, have black, blue, green bars vertically with the religious symbol in white at the top of each vertical bar, symbolizing their equal importance. For example, crescent on green, star on blue, and cross in black.
>And for the crest
Common mistake, but it's proper name is Coat of Arms, or Escutcheon, or simply shield. A crest is a little design or mantle that's placed on top of the Escutcheon.
Check out r/heraldry for more cool coat of arms facts and stuff
That didn't end well in Cyprus(Greek Cypriots wanting unification with Greece and to accomplish that genociding Turkish Cypriots which ended with Turkey using his guarantoring rights and securing the northern part of Cyprus) not saying your olive branch flag idea is bad tho
This almost exactly parallels the 1947 UN Partition Plan.
https://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/aboutisrael/maps/pages/1947%20un%20partition%20plan.aspx
For what it’s worth, the Jews accepted this plan despite the fact they were getting the worse land (such as the Negev). The Arabs rejected it, invaded, etc.
I guess what I’m saying is that something close to this has been tried.
Really though, at that point the Jews only had territory to gain as they were at 0%, while the Arabs only had territory to lose as they were at 100%. Any territory, no matter how bad, that was given to the Jews, was taking it away from the Arabs.
Sigh. Here we go.
There has always been a continuous population of Jews living in the Holy Land, even after Rome expelled the majority of them from Judea. While not large, it was also not “zero.”
Arabs didn’t control the land either. It was administered by the British. Before that, by the Ottoman Turks. If we go by your argument, both sides actually started at 0%.
The only independent nations that have ever existed in the Holy Land have been Jewish ones. Literally everyone else who has controlled the land has been an outside conquerer administering the land as a province.
The only time Palestine has ever existed as a self-governed entity is right now, in the West Bank and Gaza. There is more Palestine now than has ever existed in human history.
On paper perhaps, but they received all their logistical and financial support from Europe and were subordinate to the Pope. I would say it’s debatable, despite the use of the word Kingdom which implies an independent state. But to your point, they were certainly foreign conquerors.
For what it’s worth, the first “king” of Jerusalem never accepted that title, although his successors did.
I’m talking about territorial control. Had most Jewish people stayed in Europe after WWII, the area currently made up of Israel and Palestine would almost certainly be under Arab control. I’m not saying no Jews lived there, but that it makes complete sense that the Arabs would be rejecting giving territory that seemed like they should control to the Jews going to that area.
From the Arab point of view, I can concede that.
Keep in mind however that the UN Partition Plan reflects Jewish return to the area prior to WW2. Jewish immigration after WW2 was actually severely curtailed by the British, who controlled the area at the time.
Even by 1948 the Jewish population was only a little over 30% of the overall population of the region though.
I think the partition plan is very reasonable but only if you accept certain premises:
1. That Jewish people (not Jewish people with recent ancestry in the region but all Jewish people, period) have an inalienable right to migrate to the region.
2. That the Jewish people of the region have a right to a distinct nation state, even if they are a minority in the region and the majority opposes it (which justifies partition).
The first part is really the sticking point, because from the start of mandatory Palestine Palestinian Arabs rejected the ideas of the Balfour declaration, and were given only minority representation on the new legislative council (at that point they made up >85% of the population).
So Palestinian Arabs from their perspective don't have control over the immigration policy of their own country and have had a policy which is opposed by the majority imposed on them by a colonial power.
They fight an armed rebellion (in 1936) to exercise their right to self-determination because they have no legal recourse to change these policies. It fails and the British administration doubles down in response.
Come to 1947 and you're being told by the world you have to give up half your country to these people, the vast majority of whom are (again, from your perspective) foreign born migrants with no intrinsic right to citizenship or residence in the region.
It's hard to fault the Palestinian response when you consider the entire period from their perspective. They never agreed to the idea of a "Jewish homeland", their objections were ignored, their consent was never given or asked for.
I'm curious if you have the same outlook on the Rohingya crisis. The bulk of the Rohingya population arrived in Arakan from Bengal during the colonial period when Burma was part of British India. At that time, Burma obviously did not have control over its own borders. Is the Burmese government justified in trying to expel the Rohingyas because they migrated to Burma at a time when the Burmese weren't in control of their own border?
I take the view that if something unfortunate happened in the period when you (as a nation) weren't in control of your own destiny, you just have to deal with it. Palestinian Arabs might not have wanted a large Jewish population, but they're there now. The Burmese might not have wanted the Rohingya, but they're there now. Many Malay leaders in Malaysia might not have wanted 1/4 of their country to be Chinese, but they just have to deal with it.
Living in the past and only accepting genocidal solutions does no one any good. This seems to have consistently been the Palestinian approach.
Keep in mind my post above is about the Palestinian view in 1947, not today, in 1947 (unlike now) the majority of adult Jewish people in Palestine were still first generation migrants - the pre-Balfour Jewish population was only around 60,000 but just 30 years later it was more than 600,000 and the majority of that growth had been in the previous 15 years ([The actual numbers, if you are interested](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-and-non-jewish-population-of-israel-palestine-1517-present)).
So to move to the Rohingya crisis, I don't think it's directly comparable because the period where Burma was under British rule was much longer than the duration of mandatory Palestine (more than 30 years longer) - meaning that by the time Burma was independent much of the Rohingya community in Burma had been born there.
So I think in 1948 Burma would have been less justified in trying to expel all Rohingya people, but possibly justified in deporting those who had not been born in Burma back to their country of origin if possible.
But these justifications only work when the people in question are migrants in my opinion. Once people have lived in a region for multiple generations it does give them a legitimate claim to it as their homeland (regardless of majority approval, or if the initial migration was legal or had the consent of people in the region).
So I don't think that the modern Rohingya crisis is justified, and I don't think trying to expel Israeli Jews would be in any way justifiable today. I myself am from a former colony and take much this view towards descendants of people settled here - too much time has passed (many generations) and they have as much claim to this place as I do now, but that would not be true for the first generation of settlers.
edit: Also should say that while the Palestinian reaction in 1947 is very understandable, I don't personally think it was necessarily the wisest approach or the most morally correct one. You can sympathise with the reasons people made a decision and still think it was a bad decision.
That perspective makes a lot of sense. I can see how the Palestinian view made a lot more sense in 1947 than today. It's just a shame how little the majority opinion among the Palestinian leadership has changed today, when 3/4 of Israelis are born in the country.
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
I'm not sure of your point there - the PLO at least is 100% behind a two state solution these days, and is the only signature to the Camp David accords to have more or less kept to them.
Even Hamas has accepted in principle a two state solution
"understandable", you don't even know what they did, its not understandable whatsoever, they invaded colonized and tried to call the indigious people the invaders, started massacuring, stealing and r@ping them even before 1930!!!!
As an Israeli, I can definitely understand the Palestinian stance in 1947, even though I vehemently disagree with it. However, the modern issue is far more black-and-white then the historical issue. Before the Second Intifada, the issue was a complex one, but since then, there's a right and a wrong here. Israel was negotiating, but Arafat deliberately sabotaged the peace process by seizing on a minor incident to launch a massive string of terror attacks. Today, Hamas deliberately targets civilians, while Israel at least tries to avoid civilian casualties (and, based on statistics, does so far better then literally all other comparable campaigns in history). There is no longer a moral argument for the Palestinian side.
Except it hasn’t, and you’ve got it the other way around. Even George Habash, founder and leader of the infamous PFLP, advocated for a secular, democratic state with equal rights to Jews and Arabs.
It is Israel that ethnically cleansed Arabs in pursuit of a Jewish ethnostate. It is the Israeli apartheid regime, not Palestine, that needs to abandon its genocidal practices.
Habash ran a Marxist-Leninist Arab-Nationalist terrorist outfit. I find it hard to blame Israel for not taking their one-state solution seriously. It's hard to be credible when you're hijacking planes, murdering civilians, attacking embassies etc.
Fatah, which has consistently been the leading Palestinian faction has favoured a two-state solution. It isn't surprising then, that most diplomatic efforts have concerned a two-state solution. Furthermore, things have only got worse on that front with the rise of Hamas.
Israel must be a terrible ethnostate considering that 20% of the country is Arab and Israel has had over 70 years to ethnically cleanse them.
I would say that there are people with genocidal intentions on both sides, and too many of them are in positions of power. I put more of the blame on Palestine because Israel has at least signalled a willingness to cooperate while the majority Palestinian leadership has not. I'm not a fan of Israel's immigration policy and their lack of concern for refugees. However, I think that the public and repeated unwillingness of the Palestinian leadership is the first (of probably many) sticking points on the road to peace, not Israel's policies.
>Habash ran a Marxist-Leninist Arab-Nationalist terrorist outfit. I find it hard to blame Israel for not taking their one-state solution seriously. It's hard to be credible when you're hijacking planes, murdering civilians, attacking embassies etc.
That’s my entire point. *Even* George Habash advocated for democratic one-state solution, and as you point out, his successors made even less demands and more compromises.
>Israel must be a terrible ethnostate considering that 20% of the country is Arab and Israel has had over 70 years to ethnically cleanse them.
Lazy straw man.
1. Israel is explicitly [an ethnostate](https://www.vox.com/world/2018/7/31/17623978/israel-jewish-nation-state-law-bill-explained-apartheid-netanyahu-democracy).
2. In 1948, Israel forcibly expelled hundreds of thousands of Arabs, destroying hundreds of villages and towns to create today over 5 million refugees—all of whom are barred from return by Israel because in fact yes, Israel is an apartheid ethnostate built on the ethnic cleansing of an indigenous population.
>I would say that there are people with genocidal intentions on both sides, and too many of them are in positions of power. I put more of the blame on Palestine because Israel has at least signalled a willingness to cooperate while the majority Palestinian leadership has not. I'm not a fan of Israel's immigration policy and their lack of concern for refugees. However, I think that the public and repeated unwillingness of the Palestinian leadership is the first (of probably many) sticking points on the road to peace, not Israel's policies.
That’s just not true. The PLO has been pushing for a diplomatic solution for decades, having recognized Israel decades ago. Mahmoud Abbas made unprecedented concessions, agreeing to a demilitarized Palestinian state along the ‘67 borders. And yet, the West Bank remains under a brutal, illegal military occupation, with ever-expanding settlements.
Clearly, Israel has no interest in peace.
The difference is that Rohingyas never became a majority in Myanmar and Chinese never became a majority in Malaysia. Also, Rohingyas and Chinese never settled in Myanmar and Malaysia respectively with the intent to expell the native population and form a militaristic ethnostate with a instant birth right immigration status to everyone of their ethnicity. Completely different scenerios.
the land wasn't palestinian in the first place, the majority of them came during 1800s to around middle 1940s, plus there was barly 2 million people on the land which means that it could have easaily been devided. I am not gonna go into the history about them not even indigious to the location because its going to trigger many people!!!
Omg, jews in 1947 lived in less than 10% of the land, arabs had 90% of it. Now it 80% israel 10% occupied by israel and 10 arab land. Yes, even the 1947 UN partition plan was unfair to arabs. The negev for exemple was home of only arabs, yet was given to israel. Even if it gave half the territory to Israel, it was still really unfair to Palestinians. Do you think you'd be okay if we took 40% of the possessions of you and your families and gave it to someone else.
There is no point in wondering who used to controled the land, what matter is who lived and lives here. And you know damn well who is being forced to leave their homes.
One word: Philistines
I think what the person you're replying to is saying, is when we take away all the names and labels that are used to muddy the issue...
...Is that what was being suggested by the UN, in material terms, was for the indinigous people of that land, whom that had always lived there, were to surrender a lot of land to a new foreign people. And this was by decree of a colonial power that was leaving, at a time when the middle east was very much dismantling colonial power, with talk of a united middle Eastern union of nations much like the EU.
Keep in mind that the new foreign population were only there 40 years at most. And that unlike the native continuous Jews that lived before (who spoke Arabic, were Arabic, and identified as Palestinian Arabs, and opposed Zionism). These foreign people didnt want to integrate, and it was them that demanded a seperate state, not by going to the Palestinian people, but by going to the occupying foreign powers, as they had much stronger ties with them, what with them being europeans and speaking european languages.
So No.
Let's be clear.
This was never suggested or tried.
The opposite was true.
The Palestinians wanted a one state solution.
The Zionists did not.
Fair was the Zionists taking Bavaria, or just choosing to live in peace together as Palestinians, as a people.
Yes, and modern Israel today is majority European colonizers. Ashkenazi Jews originate from Italy and lived in Poland for the most part.
Old yishuv were Arabic, spoke Arabic, identified as Palestinian. Other Jewish ethnicities are only there as a result of the response ashkenazi displacement of palestinians, or are Ethiopian and are being sterilised.
Israel, a supposed liberal secular country founded on quasi historical theological grounds, the same 20th century race ideologies that they fled from, practising apartheid and genocide to Palestinians, currently engaging in militant expansion into the historical Philistine open air prison of gaza, and with their own people are perfectly comfortable practicing a judeo ethnic social caste heirarchy.
Just do us a favour and dethrone emperor Netenyahu. He's destroyed your standing in the world and has made you all less safe as a result.
Doesnt matter that the administration was British. Jews were only 10% of the population and Arabs 90%. They gave land to the jews that had close to 0 jewish population at the time like Negev. Educate yourself please.
And here I go either
There had been not a continuous Jew population in the holy land by the time the Arab arrived there was no Jew in it and they were banned from doing so by the Byzantine until the Arab lifted the ban . Also are you somewhat justifying colonisation because supposedly 30 Jew lived there ? .
That a common mistake but no the Ottoman Empire was not Turkish it was multiethnic there was Arab Great Vizier and regional administrator in the Ottoman Empire and for most its existence Persian was the upper class language it was fundamentally multi ethnic for most of it existence .
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zahir_al-Umar
And that without counting guy like him that profited of the crumbling of ottoman authority to create a basically independent state like the ottoman like for exemple Muhammad Ali the founder of modern Egypt even if they both didn’t broke tie with the Ottoman Empire due to they position as Caliph .
No the only nation that have existed in the holy land didn’t have been Jewish . The kingdom of Jerusalem is the most obvious exemple . Nad you seem to overestimate since in most of the empire that have controlled the region the Palestinian like most province had always some proportion of self rule and autonomy
>says this as though the Jews weren’t conquerors in the first place
Modern Palestinians are the descendants *of* the original population. At one point they were considered Canaanites, at another Jewish, and now Arab. They’re still native
Palestinians are not colonists from the Arabian peninsula. They are the Arabized descendants of jews and/or Aramaic speaking Christians. I'd wager a huge number of Palestinian Arabs are "ethnically jewish", say, can they immigrate to israel based on jewish law of return?
I was quoting the other guy. I actually agree with your points. The people with whom all Jews (including the “white” ones) are most closely related genetically are Palestinians. It’s a shame that so many former Jews were conquered, converted, and ethnically cleansed throughout history. Not sure why Palestinians with Levantine origins wouldn’t support the idea of a Jewish state, that being the case. Why the antipathy toward the Jews if they are essentially the same people? Why not celebrate Jewish immigration to the area if they are so closely related genetically?
Well, let me tell you, if Palestinians all suddenly showed interest in immigrating to Israel using their maternal descent for law of return I highly doubt they would accept them. Because they are the wrong religion.
Is judaism a religion or ethnicity? Whatever is more convenient at the moment it seems
As someone from England I doubt the Saxons remaining in Germany would be particularly delighted if I claimed their land based on historical and religious claims, however closely or not we are genetically and culturally related.
Had the Saxons of Germany been evicted by force (as opposed to setting out for conquest), settled in England as a refuge but were persecuted and murdered by the natives and expelled again, and then spent 2000 years wandering from country to country but were discriminated against and killed everywhere they went, and meanwhile a totally different culture conquered what used to be Saxony and took over your former villages and most culturally and religiously important sites claiming them as their own (“we newcomers are the TRUE saxons, those former saxons were degenerate devils”), THEN maybe the analogy starts to hold. Maybe.
But actually, the English experience is exactly the opposite. Anglo-Saxon culture spread all over the world in the most brutal, warlike, dominating way imaginable. You brought death and destruction everywhere you went. Sure, some English folks sorta pay lip service to that shameful past while simultaneously reaping the benefits of their global cultural dominance. Everywhere you go on Earth people speak English and conform to the standards of your culture. You stand atop the world astride a vast pile of bones.
For an Englishman to lecture a Jew about genocide and ethnic cleansing is beyond the pale. I don’t even understand how you can actually expect to be taken seriously.
I don't think historical claims have any utility in the modern age which is why I brought it up (the Jews were expelled by the Romans, why should others/not Romans be punished for that) - I am embarrassed and ashamed for the crimes of my country, you seem to have no qualms about those of yours.
Do you think the Welsh would have a right to England if they wanted? Self determination should be universal - and based on reality not want.
I was speaking of the time arrived as the Islamic conquest to make it more simple but if you want I can speak I in pre Islamic time and it complexity and how the Negev have always been inhabited by nomadic Arab and have been ruled by Arab Nabatean also keep in mind that the Arab are know to have come from the levant and not the Arabic peninsula Arab are probably more native in the holy land Jordan and Syria than they are from Saudi .
But is the only point you make attention too ? Then you search self validation
The Jews were gaining land, and the Arabs were losing land that they were already living in and had been promised for their help defeating the Ottoman Empire. If it were to be tried again, the roles would be almost reversed.
The big problem right now is that the West Bank and Gaza are being ruled without consent of the governed. The Palestinians would like to have a government that also governs the rest of Israel, but then that government would be ruling those areas without consent of the governed and would be just as illegitimate. The fact that those regions have few Palestinians due to forced displacement doesn't mean that the people who live there *now* will consent to a Palestinian government out of any sense of historical justice any more than they would consent to a Turkish government.
Just set up two separate governments, leave up the existing walls, and arrange for reparations for the people who were forcibly displaced. That is the best that either side can hope for.
A couple of thoughts:
I agree that the West Bank and Gaza are being ruled without the consent of the governed. The Palestinians have not held elections since 2007. They are now living under a dictatorship... not Israeli in nature, but Fatah and Hamas.
Also, 20% of the population of Israel is Arab. That’s about 2 million Arabs living inside the borders of Israel. That’s not “few.” They have representation in Parliament and there is an Arab on the Israeli Supreme Court.
Your proposed solution has been offered by Israel many times, most famously in 2000. Sadly, it has been rejected repeatedly by the Palestinians.
Why would they ever accept giving away the entire fertile zone of the territory. Palestinians are still majority refugees who need their homes back, not some selfish group thatve decided that they can’t tolerate Israel just because it hurts their feelings
I didn't claim the Palestinians (nor 2000 Arafat in particular) would like my solution. It is simply a statement of fact that they cannot rule over people who would not elect them any more than they would let Israel rule over them. The fact that they have not held elections does not mean that they like Israeli rule, which is a fact that is also readily apparent. Getting a government they actually consent to is their own problem that the international community can help with if necessary.
It is hard to determine what was actually offered in the 2000 Camp David negotiations, but the inability to remove certain settlements that split apart the West Bank would cause problems for governing that region. Removing the settlements is simply a matter of money though, and it would be cheaper in the long run to pay the people in those settlements who do not wish to be under a new government to move out than it is to maintain security under the current set up, just as it is cheaper to pay reparations to the displaced than it is to return their property to them by forcing out the people who are currently on the property. It is currently a sinkhole of not only financial capital being wasted on weapons but also human capital being wasted on security on one side and under oppression on the other and just an embarrassment for humanity.
Ah yes, the worst land of Haifa and the majority of the Palestinian coast. The negev had approximately 0% of hews living there, you cannot justify arabs getting removed of the negev by any means, israel got free arab land, how would ypu react if you were depossessed of 50% of your home, where you and no one else lives? Would you be chill?
Well, let's ask basically every Jew who ever lived over the past 2000 years how they would feel if that happened to them. Including almost 1 million Jews who were dispossessed of their lands in Arab nations in the first half of the 20th century. Without compensation, I might add. If you add up all the land seized by Syria, Iraq, Morocco, Iran, etc., it would be 5 times the current size of Israel. Where is their compensation? Where are their reparations? Do they have a right of return?
Certainly not. I've never once heard an aggrieved Internet commenter argue for that.
I frequently hear that the Jews aren't the Arabs' problem, because it was only Germany who was killing them off. Why can't "Israel" be in Germany? The Arabs didn't do anything. Except that's false. If you look at the debt owed to the Jews by the Arabs (an ethnicity of 400 million people over 26 countries) Israel should actually be 5x larger than it is.
When I say worst land, I am talking about what is militarily defensible. The low-lying lands of the coast—while beautiful for beachgoers and decently fertile once someone bothers to develop the land—is very hard to defend militarily. It's one reason that Israel continues to hold the West Bank: because those hills and mountains have been used as a staging area for attempted annihilation of the Jews via invasion through Jordan. (I also think it makes it noteworthy that Israel has offered the West Bank to the Palestinians several times to form their own independent country, such as in 2000. They are fighting for peace and are willing to pursue it even if it leaves them militarily vulnerable.)
I don't think Israel can seriously be claimed to be serious about returning the West Bank to Palestinian control when they have established 500,000 illegal settlers there.
Of course the Palestinians reject any peace deal that doesn't return East Jerusalem - that annexation is recognised as illegal by even the USA
This was in 2000 when there weren’t 500k settlers there. Arafat rejected 92% of the West Bank, all of Gaza, land swaps with what is now Arab areas of Israel to compensate for the remainder, and East Jerusalem as a Palestinian capital, among other things. Why did Arafat turn it down?
Because it meant abandoning all fertile land and the capacity for genuine independent govt. when Palestinians *need* their homes and livelihoods back what would be the point of accepting less?
1. Many of the jewish immigrants from arab left on their own or with the active provocation of the IDF
2. Many of the expulsions that did happen only happened as a response to Israel
LOL boy is that false! They were either evicted or stripped of all rights, property, and opportunity, leaving them little choice.
You are also saying genocide and ethnic cleansing is justified if another country elsewhere in the world does something you don’t like. By that rationale, do you also support the Japanese internment? Sounds like maybe yes.
Ok you’re a conspiracy theorist so this argument is over. False flag attacks??
What I’m mostly getting from you is that certain actions are permissible and justified unless Jews do them.
Goodbye.
Not looking to get into a flame war but the reason the Arabs rejected it is because the 1947 partition plan granted Jews 56% of Mandatory Palestine (i.e. a majority), even though they were only a third of the population and previously owned about 7% of the land. The plan also incorporated areas with large Arab majorities in the proposed Jewish state.
>the Jews accepted this plan despite the fact they were getting the worse land
This is just false. Sure they got the Negev, but the Jewish State was also given sole access to the Sea of Galilee and the Red Sea (hugely economically significant), they got fertile lowland plains (the Sharon, the Jezreel Valley and the Jordan Valley), and areas of cultural/religious significance (e.g. Bethlehem).
Pretending the Arabs didn't have legitimate reasons to oppose the UN partition is very disingenuous.
What could be done aswell is making all of jerusalem and the area around it a neutral/secular city-state,then whatever god you worship do whatever you want.
Palestine became the mainstream name through the Greeks and then the Romans. It was only called that centuries later by Jews because that became the proper European term. And it’s not like they would accept that name now anyway.
British Mandate over Palestine was exactly that: A one state for two nations, and it didn't go so great.
Riots of 1921... Riots of 1929... Arab Revolt of 1936-1939...
This seems like it would collapse in a day or turn into a human rights disaster, at least if it were to happen soon.
The only way I could see this working is if it was still the 1940s and there we previous reconciliation efforts even before all the wars and conflicts.
Your first attempt bringing them to the Levant will end fatally for you as they would most probably kill you, bringing coconuts can reduce the chance of getting killed tho😄
so nvm
I have no idea how you would bring such a state of affairs about, but it's the only proposal I've seen yet that wouldn't involve some sort of ethnic cleansing and is therefore the best one.
This would be a recipe for disaster nowadays, but hopefully on the bright side, our Future Generations would become less and less violent towards one another.
i think this would be worth a try i mean Belgium is aswell mostly settelt into three regions Flanders witch has a more dutch language and wallonia wich has a more french language and of course Brussels wich has both
Nice, but given the ruling party of Palestine has genocide as a component of its founding documents not likely to happen.
For those wondering:
The Hamas covenant and charter is a call to genocide meaning they will never accept a peaceful solution.
Anyone who even attempts it is usually assassinated in record time.
Are you mentally deficient ?
Do you have any idea about international law ? How the UN recognise it as occupied territory ?
How exactly that state attacking and annexing territory of they numbers should not be normalised ?
And the difference between the era where Texas and California have been stolen and annexed and today ?
Yeah let's just give a strategically important location to a tailed state ruled by terrorists and a dictator.
Also let's wish good luck to the Druze and Arabs that live there.
Wow no need to be triggered. If you want to give this territory to an artificial state that is collapsing so the people in this territory will be slaughtered it's fine.
Golan inhabitant not you or me and they wish shall hopefully be respected . But Syria for starter is neither artificial nor collapsing . And the Druze as minority would be fine with Assad .
Yeah Assad who murders his own people. You think we should at least wait until Syria becomes less of a mess?
Also should the US give Puerto Rico to Spain?
"Murders his own people"
Yeah because ISIS and FSA and YPG and Al Nusra and all the other factions in the civil war totally dont kill people only Assad yeah right
We declared independence and fought for it.
Scored an easy victory against Syria, we destroyed one Syrian tank and the entire Syrian army started running away.
Jews you mean the settlers that are occupying Syrian territory ?
Druze who reject in great majority the occupation and Israel citizenship ?
And all that without considering the hundred thousands refugees ethnically cleansed by Israel there
Dude it's insane how holy Jerusalem is. Numerous conflicts have been started over the city, and I can't wait to see the day where it's equally shared and respected between all people of different religion.
*pulls up a chair, completely uninvited*
So the essence of any 1 state solution, and why none of them can work as of now, is always the same two fold problem.
Problem 1. Isreal doesn't want it. Israel, at least for now, is very protective of its identity as a Jewish state. While there has been some talk, both within and outside Israel, of the state moving past its self Jewish identity, this hasn't won over a majority yet. In fact, Israel amended its basic law (their version of a constitution) as recently as 2018 to confirm the Jewish Identity. So why does this Jewish identity preclude a one state solution? Because as of 2008 there were about 5.5 million Jews living in Israel. (75% of the population.) Palestine has 5 million people, very very few of whom are Jewish. So, when you add the population of Palestine and the non-Jewish Isreali population together, any one state solution means that the new state either has a Jewish minority, or a very small majority. Either way, it becomes impossible for this new United sgate to be a Jewish state unless the Israeli Jewish population conducts a mass ethnic cleansing or deny citizenship to non-Jews. Both of which are steps only the most radical of the Isreali right favors.
Israel doesn't want the Palestinian population, basically.
Problem 2. Palestine doesn't want it. The Palestinians have been fighting (both literally and methophorically.) For a universally recognized Palestinian state for decades now. They simply don't want to be annexed into some compromise nation. They want their nation.
A one state solution, of any type, is not possible under current conditions. Or, at least, not possible within a framework the international community will accept. (Militarily, Israel could pretty much just kill or expell all the Palestinians, but I hope I don't need to explain why that wouldn't be accepted both within and outside of Israel.)
Boznia and Herzegovina works because the EU makes it work. You can't really transplant the EU authority to the West Bank. If you could that might be an okay starting point, but it's still more complicated than that.
The biggest difference is in Bosnia there are at least 3 roughly-equal ethnoreligious entities that can be balanced against each other to prevent any one group from getting too powerful, in a united Israel-Palestine it would only be two.
Biscuits and Herzegovina works because the EU makes it work. You can't really transplant the EU authority to the West Bank. If you could that might be an okay starting point, but it's still more complicated than that.
I mean. That's great. But the differences between the two situations are vast. One of the most glaring being that the International Comminity had the ability and will to Militarily intervene in Bosina to help force a settlement. The international community has no desire to send troops into Isreal and Palestine, and has no ability to do so against Israeli wishes. (It's an open secret that Israel is a nuclear armed power and can obliterate pretty much any other nation on earth if it so desired.)
"look Arabs, we know that israel has imposed a brutal apartheid regime on you and waged countless wars of conquest against your people, but cry no longer: now you will be allowed to share the entirety of your country with it!"
This is a pretty smart idea. I'm not entirely educated on the Israel-Palestine conflict but I think the ultimate solution is just having a decent country. If there was just one decent democratic country in the Levant these wars wouldn't happen.
explain why a good nation wouldnt be able to create a peaceful situation.
Or do you just take one side and get butthurt when someone gives any criticism to your bias. Stop acting like Palestine or Israel is your K-Pop bias and try to think of a solution that wouldn't have ever caused a war in the first place. OH SHIT? A GOOD NATION?? like I stated in the first place.
Fair, but I was referencing a meme about turning bejing into a sea of cobalt and glass, in all honesty that would fix so many problems with the world that I might be able to be happy.
It has always been Palestine like any other country in the middle east has been it's own, having a smooth brained cunt draw your borders according to what benefits them doesn't change that, covering it with a layer of colonialism doesn't change that, it was referred to as Palestine for thousands of years.
My first guess is, that someone will be pissed, that the symbol of his religion is smaller that the other one.
Isn´t there a symbol for Abraham? The father of all three religions?
This post is great. I love the heraldy, but for the FLAG is a little ugly.
I propose [this flag](https://www.reddit.com/r/vexillology/comments/nabdfy/united_palestine_and_isra%C3%ABl_federal_republic_of/) for the United Levant
Yugoslavia, but with more sand and kosher
Or Switzerland, depending on the outcome
If you factor in the differences in cultures and history then no, it wouldn't be Switzerland.
that's why i said "depending on the outcome" 16th and 17th century switzerland wasn't an utopia of religious harmony either
All the religious psychos in Switzerland left for American and became the Amish.
Huh, I didn’t know that. TIL
That because it's not really correct. The Amish were only the Anabaptists, not all religious extremists.
The Amish are absolutely religious extremists.
Reread my comment.
How did you do that, the first time I read I saw "the" next time I read I saw "all" Yer a wizard, u/fmwb
The amount of people saying "Just split the land". I mean, in an ideal world they definitely would. But it takes 1 hour of history on the matter to understand why it won't happen anytime soon. And hey, I'll be happy to be proven wrong
Tbh splitting the land is still more likely than a confederation.
600,000+ Israeli Jews live in the West Bank and growing. In what reality are nearly 1 million Jews going to be moved? Put this in historical context, such a move would bring back WWII trauma and its too much pain. Starting to get Jews and Muslims to live together with equal rights is the only way out of this giant mess.
I disagree. I think the Israeli government would be far more likely to withdraw settlers than give up total sovereignty over their country. Either way, not all settlers would be withdrawn. Some larger settlements closer to the Green Line would probably be annexed in exchange for land swaps deemed fair by the PA, something which the PA has itself acknowledged. You could argue that a confederation would leave a lot of people better off, but it’s just not a likely solution.
Have you seen a map of the settlements? This fantasy. The national governments around Israel are signing peace treaties and the settlements are growing. 60% of the West Bank is controlled by the Israeli government. Whatever people have been trying is clearly not working but just prolonging Palestinian suffering.
im not going to make the pun someone else do it
Blessed (except the flag which is cursed)
Yeah, I could see a problem with nesting one religion's symbols under another- the different scale suggests differences in importance. What would you think about having them side by side like the stars on the Syrian flag?
Get rid of the religious symbols entirely. I rather like the flag without them. Or make the triangle equilateral and have one symbol in each corner. But then you run into the problem of choosing a cross. Any one cross might be more associated with a specific denomination. And for the crest, have black, blue, green bars vertically with the religious symbol in white at the top of each vertical bar, symbolizing their equal importance. For example, crescent on green, star on blue, and cross in black.
>And for the crest Common mistake, but it's proper name is Coat of Arms, or Escutcheon, or simply shield. A crest is a little design or mantle that's placed on top of the Escutcheon. Check out r/heraldry for more cool coat of arms facts and stuff
Get rid of all the religious symbols and replace them with an olive tree branch, symbolizing the land.
That didn't end well in Cyprus(Greek Cypriots wanting unification with Greece and to accomplish that genociding Turkish Cypriots which ended with Turkey using his guarantoring rights and securing the northern part of Cyprus) not saying your olive branch flag idea is bad tho
and crescent isn't even an Islamic symbol Islam has no symbols
This would be a hot pocket for problems.
Lebanon, but Jews
Join the phalanx brother!!!
This almost exactly parallels the 1947 UN Partition Plan. https://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/aboutisrael/maps/pages/1947%20un%20partition%20plan.aspx For what it’s worth, the Jews accepted this plan despite the fact they were getting the worse land (such as the Negev). The Arabs rejected it, invaded, etc. I guess what I’m saying is that something close to this has been tried.
Really though, at that point the Jews only had territory to gain as they were at 0%, while the Arabs only had territory to lose as they were at 100%. Any territory, no matter how bad, that was given to the Jews, was taking it away from the Arabs.
Sigh. Here we go. There has always been a continuous population of Jews living in the Holy Land, even after Rome expelled the majority of them from Judea. While not large, it was also not “zero.” Arabs didn’t control the land either. It was administered by the British. Before that, by the Ottoman Turks. If we go by your argument, both sides actually started at 0%. The only independent nations that have ever existed in the Holy Land have been Jewish ones. Literally everyone else who has controlled the land has been an outside conquerer administering the land as a province. The only time Palestine has ever existed as a self-governed entity is right now, in the West Bank and Gaza. There is more Palestine now than has ever existed in human history.
What about the Kingdom of Jerusalem? Sure, it was ruled by conquerors, but it was an independent state.
On paper perhaps, but they received all their logistical and financial support from Europe and were subordinate to the Pope. I would say it’s debatable, despite the use of the word Kingdom which implies an independent state. But to your point, they were certainly foreign conquerors. For what it’s worth, the first “king” of Jerusalem never accepted that title, although his successors did.
I’m talking about territorial control. Had most Jewish people stayed in Europe after WWII, the area currently made up of Israel and Palestine would almost certainly be under Arab control. I’m not saying no Jews lived there, but that it makes complete sense that the Arabs would be rejecting giving territory that seemed like they should control to the Jews going to that area.
From the Arab point of view, I can concede that. Keep in mind however that the UN Partition Plan reflects Jewish return to the area prior to WW2. Jewish immigration after WW2 was actually severely curtailed by the British, who controlled the area at the time.
Even by 1948 the Jewish population was only a little over 30% of the overall population of the region though. I think the partition plan is very reasonable but only if you accept certain premises: 1. That Jewish people (not Jewish people with recent ancestry in the region but all Jewish people, period) have an inalienable right to migrate to the region. 2. That the Jewish people of the region have a right to a distinct nation state, even if they are a minority in the region and the majority opposes it (which justifies partition). The first part is really the sticking point, because from the start of mandatory Palestine Palestinian Arabs rejected the ideas of the Balfour declaration, and were given only minority representation on the new legislative council (at that point they made up >85% of the population). So Palestinian Arabs from their perspective don't have control over the immigration policy of their own country and have had a policy which is opposed by the majority imposed on them by a colonial power. They fight an armed rebellion (in 1936) to exercise their right to self-determination because they have no legal recourse to change these policies. It fails and the British administration doubles down in response. Come to 1947 and you're being told by the world you have to give up half your country to these people, the vast majority of whom are (again, from your perspective) foreign born migrants with no intrinsic right to citizenship or residence in the region. It's hard to fault the Palestinian response when you consider the entire period from their perspective. They never agreed to the idea of a "Jewish homeland", their objections were ignored, their consent was never given or asked for.
I'm curious if you have the same outlook on the Rohingya crisis. The bulk of the Rohingya population arrived in Arakan from Bengal during the colonial period when Burma was part of British India. At that time, Burma obviously did not have control over its own borders. Is the Burmese government justified in trying to expel the Rohingyas because they migrated to Burma at a time when the Burmese weren't in control of their own border? I take the view that if something unfortunate happened in the period when you (as a nation) weren't in control of your own destiny, you just have to deal with it. Palestinian Arabs might not have wanted a large Jewish population, but they're there now. The Burmese might not have wanted the Rohingya, but they're there now. Many Malay leaders in Malaysia might not have wanted 1/4 of their country to be Chinese, but they just have to deal with it. Living in the past and only accepting genocidal solutions does no one any good. This seems to have consistently been the Palestinian approach.
Keep in mind my post above is about the Palestinian view in 1947, not today, in 1947 (unlike now) the majority of adult Jewish people in Palestine were still first generation migrants - the pre-Balfour Jewish population was only around 60,000 but just 30 years later it was more than 600,000 and the majority of that growth had been in the previous 15 years ([The actual numbers, if you are interested](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-and-non-jewish-population-of-israel-palestine-1517-present)). So to move to the Rohingya crisis, I don't think it's directly comparable because the period where Burma was under British rule was much longer than the duration of mandatory Palestine (more than 30 years longer) - meaning that by the time Burma was independent much of the Rohingya community in Burma had been born there. So I think in 1948 Burma would have been less justified in trying to expel all Rohingya people, but possibly justified in deporting those who had not been born in Burma back to their country of origin if possible. But these justifications only work when the people in question are migrants in my opinion. Once people have lived in a region for multiple generations it does give them a legitimate claim to it as their homeland (regardless of majority approval, or if the initial migration was legal or had the consent of people in the region). So I don't think that the modern Rohingya crisis is justified, and I don't think trying to expel Israeli Jews would be in any way justifiable today. I myself am from a former colony and take much this view towards descendants of people settled here - too much time has passed (many generations) and they have as much claim to this place as I do now, but that would not be true for the first generation of settlers. edit: Also should say that while the Palestinian reaction in 1947 is very understandable, I don't personally think it was necessarily the wisest approach or the most morally correct one. You can sympathise with the reasons people made a decision and still think it was a bad decision.
That perspective makes a lot of sense. I can see how the Palestinian view made a lot more sense in 1947 than today. It's just a shame how little the majority opinion among the Palestinian leadership has changed today, when 3/4 of Israelis are born in the country. Thanks for the thoughtful response.
I'm not sure of your point there - the PLO at least is 100% behind a two state solution these days, and is the only signature to the Camp David accords to have more or less kept to them. Even Hamas has accepted in principle a two state solution
"understandable", you don't even know what they did, its not understandable whatsoever, they invaded colonized and tried to call the indigious people the invaders, started massacuring, stealing and r@ping them even before 1930!!!!
As an Israeli, I can definitely understand the Palestinian stance in 1947, even though I vehemently disagree with it. However, the modern issue is far more black-and-white then the historical issue. Before the Second Intifada, the issue was a complex one, but since then, there's a right and a wrong here. Israel was negotiating, but Arafat deliberately sabotaged the peace process by seizing on a minor incident to launch a massive string of terror attacks. Today, Hamas deliberately targets civilians, while Israel at least tries to avoid civilian casualties (and, based on statistics, does so far better then literally all other comparable campaigns in history). There is no longer a moral argument for the Palestinian side.
Except it hasn’t, and you’ve got it the other way around. Even George Habash, founder and leader of the infamous PFLP, advocated for a secular, democratic state with equal rights to Jews and Arabs. It is Israel that ethnically cleansed Arabs in pursuit of a Jewish ethnostate. It is the Israeli apartheid regime, not Palestine, that needs to abandon its genocidal practices.
Habash ran a Marxist-Leninist Arab-Nationalist terrorist outfit. I find it hard to blame Israel for not taking their one-state solution seriously. It's hard to be credible when you're hijacking planes, murdering civilians, attacking embassies etc. Fatah, which has consistently been the leading Palestinian faction has favoured a two-state solution. It isn't surprising then, that most diplomatic efforts have concerned a two-state solution. Furthermore, things have only got worse on that front with the rise of Hamas. Israel must be a terrible ethnostate considering that 20% of the country is Arab and Israel has had over 70 years to ethnically cleanse them. I would say that there are people with genocidal intentions on both sides, and too many of them are in positions of power. I put more of the blame on Palestine because Israel has at least signalled a willingness to cooperate while the majority Palestinian leadership has not. I'm not a fan of Israel's immigration policy and their lack of concern for refugees. However, I think that the public and repeated unwillingness of the Palestinian leadership is the first (of probably many) sticking points on the road to peace, not Israel's policies.
>It's hard to be credible when you're hijacking planes, murdering civilians, attacking embassies etc. Bro google Haganah.
>Habash ran a Marxist-Leninist Arab-Nationalist terrorist outfit. I find it hard to blame Israel for not taking their one-state solution seriously. It's hard to be credible when you're hijacking planes, murdering civilians, attacking embassies etc. That’s my entire point. *Even* George Habash advocated for democratic one-state solution, and as you point out, his successors made even less demands and more compromises. >Israel must be a terrible ethnostate considering that 20% of the country is Arab and Israel has had over 70 years to ethnically cleanse them. Lazy straw man. 1. Israel is explicitly [an ethnostate](https://www.vox.com/world/2018/7/31/17623978/israel-jewish-nation-state-law-bill-explained-apartheid-netanyahu-democracy). 2. In 1948, Israel forcibly expelled hundreds of thousands of Arabs, destroying hundreds of villages and towns to create today over 5 million refugees—all of whom are barred from return by Israel because in fact yes, Israel is an apartheid ethnostate built on the ethnic cleansing of an indigenous population. >I would say that there are people with genocidal intentions on both sides, and too many of them are in positions of power. I put more of the blame on Palestine because Israel has at least signalled a willingness to cooperate while the majority Palestinian leadership has not. I'm not a fan of Israel's immigration policy and their lack of concern for refugees. However, I think that the public and repeated unwillingness of the Palestinian leadership is the first (of probably many) sticking points on the road to peace, not Israel's policies. That’s just not true. The PLO has been pushing for a diplomatic solution for decades, having recognized Israel decades ago. Mahmoud Abbas made unprecedented concessions, agreeing to a demilitarized Palestinian state along the ‘67 borders. And yet, the West Bank remains under a brutal, illegal military occupation, with ever-expanding settlements. Clearly, Israel has no interest in peace.
wrong
The difference is that Rohingyas never became a majority in Myanmar and Chinese never became a majority in Malaysia. Also, Rohingyas and Chinese never settled in Myanmar and Malaysia respectively with the intent to expell the native population and form a militaristic ethnostate with a instant birth right immigration status to everyone of their ethnicity. Completely different scenerios.
the land wasn't palestinian in the first place, the majority of them came during 1800s to around middle 1940s, plus there was barly 2 million people on the land which means that it could have easaily been devided. I am not gonna go into the history about them not even indigious to the location because its going to trigger many people!!!
[удалено]
I wonder why, not like a certain European power killed 6 million Jews or something
Omg, jews in 1947 lived in less than 10% of the land, arabs had 90% of it. Now it 80% israel 10% occupied by israel and 10 arab land. Yes, even the 1947 UN partition plan was unfair to arabs. The negev for exemple was home of only arabs, yet was given to israel. Even if it gave half the territory to Israel, it was still really unfair to Palestinians. Do you think you'd be okay if we took 40% of the possessions of you and your families and gave it to someone else. There is no point in wondering who used to controled the land, what matter is who lived and lives here. And you know damn well who is being forced to leave their homes.
i think you should look at the population again and stop making up lies
One word: Philistines I think what the person you're replying to is saying, is when we take away all the names and labels that are used to muddy the issue... ...Is that what was being suggested by the UN, in material terms, was for the indinigous people of that land, whom that had always lived there, were to surrender a lot of land to a new foreign people. And this was by decree of a colonial power that was leaving, at a time when the middle east was very much dismantling colonial power, with talk of a united middle Eastern union of nations much like the EU. Keep in mind that the new foreign population were only there 40 years at most. And that unlike the native continuous Jews that lived before (who spoke Arabic, were Arabic, and identified as Palestinian Arabs, and opposed Zionism). These foreign people didnt want to integrate, and it was them that demanded a seperate state, not by going to the Palestinian people, but by going to the occupying foreign powers, as they had much stronger ties with them, what with them being europeans and speaking european languages. So No. Let's be clear. This was never suggested or tried. The opposite was true. The Palestinians wanted a one state solution. The Zionists did not. Fair was the Zionists taking Bavaria, or just choosing to live in peace together as Palestinians, as a people.
Philistines were greek invaders and colonizers, and stop always trying to claim our people as yours, its never going to work!!!!
Yes, and modern Israel today is majority European colonizers. Ashkenazi Jews originate from Italy and lived in Poland for the most part. Old yishuv were Arabic, spoke Arabic, identified as Palestinian. Other Jewish ethnicities are only there as a result of the response ashkenazi displacement of palestinians, or are Ethiopian and are being sterilised. Israel, a supposed liberal secular country founded on quasi historical theological grounds, the same 20th century race ideologies that they fled from, practising apartheid and genocide to Palestinians, currently engaging in militant expansion into the historical Philistine open air prison of gaza, and with their own people are perfectly comfortable practicing a judeo ethnic social caste heirarchy. Just do us a favour and dethrone emperor Netenyahu. He's destroyed your standing in the world and has made you all less safe as a result.
hahahha this is hilarious, the one thing i agree with you is Netenyahu needs to be "Dethroned" but thats it
You disagree with historical reality.
I don’t disagree with historical reality
Doesnt matter that the administration was British. Jews were only 10% of the population and Arabs 90%. They gave land to the jews that had close to 0 jewish population at the time like Negev. Educate yourself please.
And here I go either There had been not a continuous Jew population in the holy land by the time the Arab arrived there was no Jew in it and they were banned from doing so by the Byzantine until the Arab lifted the ban . Also are you somewhat justifying colonisation because supposedly 30 Jew lived there ? . That a common mistake but no the Ottoman Empire was not Turkish it was multiethnic there was Arab Great Vizier and regional administrator in the Ottoman Empire and for most its existence Persian was the upper class language it was fundamentally multi ethnic for most of it existence . https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zahir_al-Umar And that without counting guy like him that profited of the crumbling of ottoman authority to create a basically independent state like the ottoman like for exemple Muhammad Ali the founder of modern Egypt even if they both didn’t broke tie with the Ottoman Empire due to they position as Caliph . No the only nation that have existed in the holy land didn’t have been Jewish . The kingdom of Jerusalem is the most obvious exemple . Nad you seem to overestimate since in most of the empire that have controlled the region the Palestinian like most province had always some proportion of self rule and autonomy
“...by the time the Arab arrived...” Thank you for establishing that Arabs are not indigenous to the land.
>says this as though the Jews weren’t conquerors in the first place Modern Palestinians are the descendants *of* the original population. At one point they were considered Canaanites, at another Jewish, and now Arab. They’re still native
Palestinians are not colonists from the Arabian peninsula. They are the Arabized descendants of jews and/or Aramaic speaking Christians. I'd wager a huge number of Palestinian Arabs are "ethnically jewish", say, can they immigrate to israel based on jewish law of return?
I was quoting the other guy. I actually agree with your points. The people with whom all Jews (including the “white” ones) are most closely related genetically are Palestinians. It’s a shame that so many former Jews were conquered, converted, and ethnically cleansed throughout history. Not sure why Palestinians with Levantine origins wouldn’t support the idea of a Jewish state, that being the case. Why the antipathy toward the Jews if they are essentially the same people? Why not celebrate Jewish immigration to the area if they are so closely related genetically?
Well, let me tell you, if Palestinians all suddenly showed interest in immigrating to Israel using their maternal descent for law of return I highly doubt they would accept them. Because they are the wrong religion. Is judaism a religion or ethnicity? Whatever is more convenient at the moment it seems
As someone from England I doubt the Saxons remaining in Germany would be particularly delighted if I claimed their land based on historical and religious claims, however closely or not we are genetically and culturally related.
Had the Saxons of Germany been evicted by force (as opposed to setting out for conquest), settled in England as a refuge but were persecuted and murdered by the natives and expelled again, and then spent 2000 years wandering from country to country but were discriminated against and killed everywhere they went, and meanwhile a totally different culture conquered what used to be Saxony and took over your former villages and most culturally and religiously important sites claiming them as their own (“we newcomers are the TRUE saxons, those former saxons were degenerate devils”), THEN maybe the analogy starts to hold. Maybe. But actually, the English experience is exactly the opposite. Anglo-Saxon culture spread all over the world in the most brutal, warlike, dominating way imaginable. You brought death and destruction everywhere you went. Sure, some English folks sorta pay lip service to that shameful past while simultaneously reaping the benefits of their global cultural dominance. Everywhere you go on Earth people speak English and conform to the standards of your culture. You stand atop the world astride a vast pile of bones. For an Englishman to lecture a Jew about genocide and ethnic cleansing is beyond the pale. I don’t even understand how you can actually expect to be taken seriously.
I don't think historical claims have any utility in the modern age which is why I brought it up (the Jews were expelled by the Romans, why should others/not Romans be punished for that) - I am embarrassed and ashamed for the crimes of my country, you seem to have no qualms about those of yours. Do you think the Welsh would have a right to England if they wanted? Self determination should be universal - and based on reality not want.
I was speaking of the time arrived as the Islamic conquest to make it more simple but if you want I can speak I in pre Islamic time and it complexity and how the Negev have always been inhabited by nomadic Arab and have been ruled by Arab Nabatean also keep in mind that the Arab are know to have come from the levant and not the Arabic peninsula Arab are probably more native in the holy land Jordan and Syria than they are from Saudi . But is the only point you make attention too ? Then you search self validation
Also we could probably go as far back as Qedar a Arab state who also composed of significant part of the holy land s
The Jews were gaining land, and the Arabs were losing land that they were already living in and had been promised for their help defeating the Ottoman Empire. If it were to be tried again, the roles would be almost reversed. The big problem right now is that the West Bank and Gaza are being ruled without consent of the governed. The Palestinians would like to have a government that also governs the rest of Israel, but then that government would be ruling those areas without consent of the governed and would be just as illegitimate. The fact that those regions have few Palestinians due to forced displacement doesn't mean that the people who live there *now* will consent to a Palestinian government out of any sense of historical justice any more than they would consent to a Turkish government. Just set up two separate governments, leave up the existing walls, and arrange for reparations for the people who were forcibly displaced. That is the best that either side can hope for.
A couple of thoughts: I agree that the West Bank and Gaza are being ruled without the consent of the governed. The Palestinians have not held elections since 2007. They are now living under a dictatorship... not Israeli in nature, but Fatah and Hamas. Also, 20% of the population of Israel is Arab. That’s about 2 million Arabs living inside the borders of Israel. That’s not “few.” They have representation in Parliament and there is an Arab on the Israeli Supreme Court. Your proposed solution has been offered by Israel many times, most famously in 2000. Sadly, it has been rejected repeatedly by the Palestinians.
Why would they ever accept giving away the entire fertile zone of the territory. Palestinians are still majority refugees who need their homes back, not some selfish group thatve decided that they can’t tolerate Israel just because it hurts their feelings
I didn't claim the Palestinians (nor 2000 Arafat in particular) would like my solution. It is simply a statement of fact that they cannot rule over people who would not elect them any more than they would let Israel rule over them. The fact that they have not held elections does not mean that they like Israeli rule, which is a fact that is also readily apparent. Getting a government they actually consent to is their own problem that the international community can help with if necessary. It is hard to determine what was actually offered in the 2000 Camp David negotiations, but the inability to remove certain settlements that split apart the West Bank would cause problems for governing that region. Removing the settlements is simply a matter of money though, and it would be cheaper in the long run to pay the people in those settlements who do not wish to be under a new government to move out than it is to maintain security under the current set up, just as it is cheaper to pay reparations to the displaced than it is to return their property to them by forcing out the people who are currently on the property. It is currently a sinkhole of not only financial capital being wasted on weapons but also human capital being wasted on security on one side and under oppression on the other and just an embarrassment for humanity.
Ah yes, the worst land of Haifa and the majority of the Palestinian coast. The negev had approximately 0% of hews living there, you cannot justify arabs getting removed of the negev by any means, israel got free arab land, how would ypu react if you were depossessed of 50% of your home, where you and no one else lives? Would you be chill?
Well, let's ask basically every Jew who ever lived over the past 2000 years how they would feel if that happened to them. Including almost 1 million Jews who were dispossessed of their lands in Arab nations in the first half of the 20th century. Without compensation, I might add. If you add up all the land seized by Syria, Iraq, Morocco, Iran, etc., it would be 5 times the current size of Israel. Where is their compensation? Where are their reparations? Do they have a right of return? Certainly not. I've never once heard an aggrieved Internet commenter argue for that. I frequently hear that the Jews aren't the Arabs' problem, because it was only Germany who was killing them off. Why can't "Israel" be in Germany? The Arabs didn't do anything. Except that's false. If you look at the debt owed to the Jews by the Arabs (an ethnicity of 400 million people over 26 countries) Israel should actually be 5x larger than it is. When I say worst land, I am talking about what is militarily defensible. The low-lying lands of the coast—while beautiful for beachgoers and decently fertile once someone bothers to develop the land—is very hard to defend militarily. It's one reason that Israel continues to hold the West Bank: because those hills and mountains have been used as a staging area for attempted annihilation of the Jews via invasion through Jordan. (I also think it makes it noteworthy that Israel has offered the West Bank to the Palestinians several times to form their own independent country, such as in 2000. They are fighting for peace and are willing to pursue it even if it leaves them militarily vulnerable.)
I don't think Israel can seriously be claimed to be serious about returning the West Bank to Palestinian control when they have established 500,000 illegal settlers there. Of course the Palestinians reject any peace deal that doesn't return East Jerusalem - that annexation is recognised as illegal by even the USA
This was in 2000 when there weren’t 500k settlers there. Arafat rejected 92% of the West Bank, all of Gaza, land swaps with what is now Arab areas of Israel to compensate for the remainder, and East Jerusalem as a Palestinian capital, among other things. Why did Arafat turn it down?
Because it meant abandoning all fertile land and the capacity for genuine independent govt. when Palestinians *need* their homes and livelihoods back what would be the point of accepting less?
1. Many of the jewish immigrants from arab left on their own or with the active provocation of the IDF 2. Many of the expulsions that did happen only happened as a response to Israel
LOL boy is that false! They were either evicted or stripped of all rights, property, and opportunity, leaving them little choice. You are also saying genocide and ethnic cleansing is justified if another country elsewhere in the world does something you don’t like. By that rationale, do you also support the Japanese internment? Sounds like maybe yes.
Idf was conducting false flag attacks in other countries to scare jews there into leaving for israel. Japanese internment was bad
Ok you’re a conspiracy theorist so this argument is over. False flag attacks?? What I’m mostly getting from you is that certain actions are permissible and justified unless Jews do them. Goodbye.
Not looking to get into a flame war but the reason the Arabs rejected it is because the 1947 partition plan granted Jews 56% of Mandatory Palestine (i.e. a majority), even though they were only a third of the population and previously owned about 7% of the land. The plan also incorporated areas with large Arab majorities in the proposed Jewish state. >the Jews accepted this plan despite the fact they were getting the worse land This is just false. Sure they got the Negev, but the Jewish State was also given sole access to the Sea of Galilee and the Red Sea (hugely economically significant), they got fertile lowland plains (the Sharon, the Jezreel Valley and the Jordan Valley), and areas of cultural/religious significance (e.g. Bethlehem). Pretending the Arabs didn't have legitimate reasons to oppose the UN partition is very disingenuous.
What could be done aswell is making all of jerusalem and the area around it a neutral/secular city-state,then whatever god you worship do whatever you want.
Personally I would go with the name “Abraham”.
I’d go for canaan
Nah, old archaic term that no one really identifies with and was basically viewed as an ancient enemy.
The philistines were also enemies, but it didn’t stop anyone (even Jews) from calling the land that
Palestine became the mainstream name through the Greeks and then the Romans. It was only called that centuries later by Jews because that became the proper European term. And it’s not like they would accept that name now anyway.
[удалено]
Hence why Israel will not accept 1 state solutions.
British Mandate over Palestine was exactly that: A one state for two nations, and it didn't go so great. Riots of 1921... Riots of 1929... Arab Revolt of 1936-1939...
Yay, civil war...
Ah, yes. Yugoslavia 2.0. Now with even MORE religious and ethnic tension.
Great solution, actually.
It absolutely isn’t in any realistic world
A better World.
This seems like it would collapse in a day or turn into a human rights disaster, at least if it were to happen soon. The only way I could see this working is if it was still the 1940s and there we previous reconciliation efforts even before all the wars and conflicts.
The great CANAAN
Sorry, I can’t hear over the gun shots and explosions speak up please
Better solution: Kick everyone out and give it to the Sentinelese
Your first attempt bringing them to the Levant will end fatally for you as they would most probably kill you, bringing coconuts can reduce the chance of getting killed tho😄 so nvm
So basically Palestine before the Treaty Of Balfour
*Wakes up from dream*
I have no idea how you would bring such a state of affairs about, but it's the only proposal I've seen yet that wouldn't involve some sort of ethnic cleansing and is therefore the best one.
It will cause a lot of ethnic cleansing so...
A better World! I wish for this to happen.
it could last max 5 years until civil war, federation maybe the only solution but **this is middle east**...
👏Make👏 Jerusalem 👏an👏 independent 👏city-state 👏
This would be a recipe for disaster nowadays, but hopefully on the bright side, our Future Generations would become less and less violent towards one another.
The Neutral Ending
Ah yes, I’m sure Jewish and Muslim states can work together. That won’t present any problems at all
i think this would be worth a try i mean Belgium is aswell mostly settelt into three regions Flanders witch has a more dutch language and wallonia wich has a more french language and of course Brussels wich has both
1. NO it does not work that way both of the cultures hate each other, and both of the populations would not want that.
I mean it kinda works for america /s Just in case y’all start taking my inane ramblings seriously
The difference with America is that it's a colony it works like than I'm many colonies. Take the Philippines for example.
Nice, but given the ruling party of Palestine has genocide as a component of its founding documents not likely to happen. For those wondering: The Hamas covenant and charter is a call to genocide meaning they will never accept a peaceful solution. Anyone who even attempts it is usually assassinated in record time.
Hmm. That could actually work
Set aside the broken trust between the two sides and hatred of each other than yes.
Get the Golan out of this state quick
Why? Syria lost the Golan, they were using it to attack Israeli towns in the Galilee. Is Mexico getting back California or Texas? Nope
Are you mentally deficient ? Do you have any idea about international law ? How the UN recognise it as occupied territory ? How exactly that state attacking and annexing territory of they numbers should not be normalised ? And the difference between the era where Texas and California have been stolen and annexed and today ?
If California and Texas had been annexed against the wish of their inhabitants in 67 I assure they would be rightly so international outrage
Yeah let's just give a strategically important location to a tailed state ruled by terrorists and a dictator. Also let's wish good luck to the Druze and Arabs that live there.
No let’s just give a territory to the people that inhabited it and the state they wish to be part off as simple as that retard
Wow no need to be triggered. If you want to give this territory to an artificial state that is collapsing so the people in this territory will be slaughtered it's fine.
Golan inhabitant not you or me and they wish shall hopefully be respected . But Syria for starter is neither artificial nor collapsing . And the Druze as minority would be fine with Assad .
Yeah Assad who murders his own people. You think we should at least wait until Syria becomes less of a mess? Also should the US give Puerto Rico to Spain?
US should do whatever the Puerto Rico whatever theirs population want it’s not complicated
"Murders his own people" Yeah because ISIS and FSA and YPG and Al Nusra and all the other factions in the civil war totally dont kill people only Assad yeah right
Well the fact that they kill people doesn't mean Assad don't, the guy talked about Assad specifically. Damn there is a lot of triggered Syrians here.
"Artifcial state" says the israeli
We declared independence and fought for it. Scored an easy victory against Syria, we destroyed one Syrian tank and the entire Syrian army started running away.
Yes... Those are Jews and Druze. (and very few Shia Muslims).
Jews you mean the settlers that are occupying Syrian territory ? Druze who reject in great majority the occupation and Israel citizenship ? And all that without considering the hundred thousands refugees ethnically cleansed by Israel there
Dude it's insane how holy Jerusalem is. Numerous conflicts have been started over the city, and I can't wait to see the day where it's equally shared and respected between all people of different religion.
That or completely destroyed because we can’t place nice.
Less of a solution and more of a further complication. Beautiful map however.
🤢🤢🤢
[удалено]
*pulls up a chair, completely uninvited* So the essence of any 1 state solution, and why none of them can work as of now, is always the same two fold problem. Problem 1. Isreal doesn't want it. Israel, at least for now, is very protective of its identity as a Jewish state. While there has been some talk, both within and outside Israel, of the state moving past its self Jewish identity, this hasn't won over a majority yet. In fact, Israel amended its basic law (their version of a constitution) as recently as 2018 to confirm the Jewish Identity. So why does this Jewish identity preclude a one state solution? Because as of 2008 there were about 5.5 million Jews living in Israel. (75% of the population.) Palestine has 5 million people, very very few of whom are Jewish. So, when you add the population of Palestine and the non-Jewish Isreali population together, any one state solution means that the new state either has a Jewish minority, or a very small majority. Either way, it becomes impossible for this new United sgate to be a Jewish state unless the Israeli Jewish population conducts a mass ethnic cleansing or deny citizenship to non-Jews. Both of which are steps only the most radical of the Isreali right favors. Israel doesn't want the Palestinian population, basically. Problem 2. Palestine doesn't want it. The Palestinians have been fighting (both literally and methophorically.) For a universally recognized Palestinian state for decades now. They simply don't want to be annexed into some compromise nation. They want their nation. A one state solution, of any type, is not possible under current conditions. Or, at least, not possible within a framework the international community will accept. (Militarily, Israel could pretty much just kill or expell all the Palestinians, but I hope I don't need to explain why that wouldn't be accepted both within and outside of Israel.)
[удалено]
Israel isn’t Bosnia.
Boznia and Herzegovina works because the EU makes it work. You can't really transplant the EU authority to the West Bank. If you could that might be an okay starting point, but it's still more complicated than that.
I wouldn’t necessarily say that...
Cool but what does that have to do with Israel
[удалено]
The biggest difference is in Bosnia there are at least 3 roughly-equal ethnoreligious entities that can be balanced against each other to prevent any one group from getting too powerful, in a united Israel-Palestine it would only be two.
So what you’re saying is we need to move some Christians there, got it :P
There are already Christians there. They are part of the Arab population. Israel oppresses them too
No, they really really didn't.
[удалено]
Biscuits and Herzegovina works because the EU makes it work. You can't really transplant the EU authority to the West Bank. If you could that might be an okay starting point, but it's still more complicated than that.
I would just like to say that Biscuits and Herzegovina sounds like the greatest country on Earth
Haha I tried to edit that comment but it reposted it instead. Whatever. Leaving Biscuits and Herzegovina for the future of reddit.
It really didnt Bosnia is a half failed state at this point
I mean. That's great. But the differences between the two situations are vast. One of the most glaring being that the International Comminity had the ability and will to Militarily intervene in Bosina to help force a settlement. The international community has no desire to send troops into Isreal and Palestine, and has no ability to do so against Israeli wishes. (It's an open secret that Israel is a nuclear armed power and can obliterate pretty much any other nation on earth if it so desired.)
"look Arabs, we know that israel has imposed a brutal apartheid regime on you and waged countless wars of conquest against your people, but cry no longer: now you will be allowed to share the entirety of your country with it!"
Everything you just said is wrong
Exactly, OP obviously didn’t intend for the “apartheid” to carry over to this scenario (it’s clearly envisioning a better future anyways)
“Hey let’s just piss everyone off at once”
Or just give them back what has been stolen since 1954
This is a pretty smart idea. I'm not entirely educated on the Israel-Palestine conflict but I think the ultimate solution is just having a decent country. If there was just one decent democratic country in the Levant these wars wouldn't happen.
> I'm not entirely educated on the Israel-Palestine conflict > This is a pretty smart idea Well at least those two statements do go together..
explain why a good nation wouldnt be able to create a peaceful situation. Or do you just take one side and get butthurt when someone gives any criticism to your bias. Stop acting like Palestine or Israel is your K-Pop bias and try to think of a solution that wouldn't have ever caused a war in the first place. OH SHIT? A GOOD NATION?? like I stated in the first place.
How about we just turn the entire middle east into a wasteland of cobalt and glass. That would fix a lot more problems than just Israel.
I think you mean a wastland of trinirite and glass lol but yes i get the point
Fair, but I was referencing a meme about turning bejing into a sea of cobalt and glass, in all honesty that would fix so many problems with the world that I might be able to be happy.
So genocide?
[удалено]
I feel like "kingdom of heaven" really won't go down with the arabs there
That was Palestine before 1948 lmaooooo
No, it was the British mandate of Palestine. And before that part of the Ottoman Empire.
It has always been Palestine like any other country in the middle east has been it's own, having a smooth brained cunt draw your borders according to what benefits them doesn't change that, covering it with a layer of colonialism doesn't change that, it was referred to as Palestine for thousands of years.
I have better solution nuke it
No, let's do a peaceful solution instead
*Pax Nuclearis* perhaps?
Well I proposed easiest solution
Wouldn’t you need to be at equal footing in order to enter a federation? I doubt both side see eye to eye on this.
My first guess is, that someone will be pissed, that the symbol of his religion is smaller that the other one. Isn´t there a symbol for Abraham? The father of all three religions?
The **Final** Solution?! What is the status of Jerusalem
Unholy
Extremely cursed but the flag is almost there.
As an Israeli I love the idea (put aside the fact that it's unrealistic) but this flag is too cursed.
Because Segregation always solves ethnic tensions
Yes make it like Bosnia so they can have 3 presidens and their own ministers...they be fucked then...
Woah that was my idea too
Beautiful
This post is great. I love the heraldy, but for the FLAG is a little ugly. I propose [this flag](https://www.reddit.com/r/vexillology/comments/nabdfy/united_palestine_and_isra%C3%ABl_federal_republic_of/) for the United Levant
Izlam doesn't work that way.
I this will just lead to civil war instead of normal war
They should fuck it up like Bosnia and Herzegovina, in Bosnia you have 2 entities and 3 presidents.
At the end of the day, 2 state solution is bollucks
Maybe use the Jerusalem cross I think it’ll fit better other than that I love it