The Palestine Question

I am a Palestinian (or thereabouts).
More of me is Palestinian than any other part (50%), so I class myself as a 2nd generation diasporic Palestinian Englishman
The placement of us in the consciousness of the British population has always been of interest to me.
So, after a discussion with my mum today, I thought that this was the best place to ask.
Firstly because face to face responses are often reserved and checked.
Secondly, because this place is large enough now to be a decent sample size.
Third, and most importantly because it requires after the initial post, little or no input from my side- ie, I can have no influence over the thread's direction.
So please:
go on.

Upholding the ignorant Aussie stereotype.

Meh.

You're eyebrows my man, not your heritage*.

*unless you're a tiny part Scottish and want to piss pisty off by wearing a kilt and eating hagis.

The Palestine Question, another great example of religion's cancerous pathology.

My own view is the pretty standard one, two state solution, can't really see anything else as viable or defensible.

will there ever be a peaceful solution? two sides with god on their side. it's hardly a win win situation.

will there ever be a peaceful solution? two sides with god on their side.

Not in the long term. Superstition on a national level will ensure cataclysm.

http://www.londonfgss.com/thread14600.html

I agree, two states. I think it's become clear the only way this is ever going to be achievable is if and when Iran arms itself with nuclear weapons. Violence, or the threat of violence, is the only language Isreal understands.

I agree, two states. I think it's become clear the only way this is ever going to be achievable is if and when Iran arms itself with nuclear weapons. Violence, or the threat of violence, is the only language Isreal understands.

If Iran arms itself with long (enough) range nuclear weapons - or comes close - Israel will of course strike against Iran (and most likely draw others into a wider crisis) - like I said having such inerrantly held superstitious ideologies in these kinds of land disputes leaves no reasonable way out.

You really think so? I think that's quite a simplistic argument. They will retaliate if that happened but neither side will use them. It will just shift the balance of power in the region.

A land without a people for a people without a land.

To me, this really is the crux of the situation and one that has never really been properly addressed in past or modern efforts to bring peace to Palestine and Israel.

Obiously the first part of the statement was inherently wrong. Maybe the then residents of the area weren't united under a common flag or recognised form of national governance, but they did still live there.

The second part, however is a more troubling issue. Firstly the grouping of "a people" was already particularly dangerous. It is one thing for a nation to adopt a religion as a principle tenet of its culture, it is something wholly different for an ill-described religious group of people to be given a nation. I've often said that is a huge mistake to found a nation on a religion. Following on from that, it is again one thing to ensure safe settlement to a region of historic importance to a group of people is entirely different to couple that with the enforced eviction of the current residents, regardless of their legitimate right to be there.

Coming up to the present time, tynan is spot on, regardless of the past and the sins of the fathers, a two state solution is pretty much the only way forward here. If we look beyond the region in question, it took 144 years from the abolition of slavery for the USA to elect a black president of it's own volition. Where segregation and dysfunction exist between two parties, it will take a long time for one to accept a member of the other as a focus of legitimate authority.

The problem with the two-state solution is that it never was two states: it is one state superimposed on top of another like a palimpsest. The ideal must surely be a one-state solution, where citizenship is based neither on ethnicity nor on religion. I believe that the two-state solution is never going to happen – it has become a means for politicians to pay lip-service to the Palestinians while doing absolutely fuck all.

'Two sides with God on their side' (in my opinion etc etc) radically underestimates the historical/ political wrong that has been done to the Palestinians. In no small part by Britain, originally. To dismiss it as a religious conflict is to make us all feel a bit better, I suspect.

The London Review of Books always has excellent essays on Israel/Palestine which I'd recommend to anyone.

There will never be peace in that region until as said above there is a two-state solution or an apocalyptic war.
Two separate countries with full independence, control of their airspace, territorial waters, international trade/travel.

Everyone is loving the mummy at the moment.

The London Review of Books always has excellent essays on Israel/Palestine which I'd recommend to anyone.

They also sell the most amazing (chocolate and raspberry) brownies in their cafe. Seriously. Good enough to go to war over.

I blame Abraham.

A land without a people for a people without a land.

To me, this really is the crux of the situation and one that has never really been properly addressed in past or modern efforts to bring peace to Palestine and Israel.

Obiously the first part of the statement was inherently wrong. Maybe the then residents of the area weren't united under a common flag or recognised form of national governance, but they did still live there.

The second part, however is a more troubling issue. Firstly the grouping of "a people" was already particularly dangerous. It is one thing for a nation to adopt a religion as a principle tenet of its culture, it is something wholly different for an ill-described religious group of people to be given a nation. I've often said that is a huge mistake to found a nation on a religion. Following on from that, it is again one thing to ensure safe settlement to a region of historic importance to a group of people is entirely different to couple that with the enforced eviction of the current residents, regardless of their legitimate right to be there.

Coming up to the present time, tynan is spot on, regardless of the past and the sins of the fathers, a two state solution is pretty much the only way forward here. If we look beyond the region in question, it took 144 years from the abolition of slavery for the USA to elect a black president of it's own volition. Where segregation and dysfunction exist between two parties, it will take a long time for one to accept a member of the other as a focus of legitimate authority.

In all seriousness I agree with SK. If every "people" had their own land the number of countries in the world would have to increase massively. There are thought to be about 195 countries in the world but thousands of ethnic and religious groups.

A state founded on religion is bad.

The idea that one religion should hold such power of a an area of great importance for so many religions is bad.

I don't think there is a solution.

i blame abraham.

• 666
  

I don't think there is a solution.

There pretty much has to be, even if that solution is to do nothing and let the conflict to continue.

The most interesting part of this whole debate for me is looking at the religious group Neturei Karta..

But generally I am in support of the Palestinians.

The problem with the two-state solution is that it never was two states:it is one state superimposed on top of another like a palimpsest.

True that it is one imposed on the top of another. Well almost, up until the settlement of Palestine by the definitive Balfour Declaration (big assumption I realise). However, an attempt to restore the past is a flawed pursuit. Given the intervening history it would be unattainable. We now have to disregard the past in order to attain a desirable future.

The ideal must surely be a one-state solution, where citizenship is based neither on ethnicity nor on religion.
That would be an ideal, but it isn't going to happen. At present ethnicity and religion is far to deeply ingrained into both sets of national identity to allow this to happen. A future integration might be possible but at the moment the two state solution is the one that is needed to preserve the nessecary rights of both sides without the use of extranational occupation.

I believe that the two-state solution is never going to happen – it has become a means for politicians to pay lip-service to the Palestinians while doing absolutely fuck all.

Just because it has become a means to lip-service, doesn't mean it can't be attained. We just need to move from politicians doing fuck all to doing something. The usual slurs about politicians are bound to follow but ultimately they still actually do things. Afterall Balfour was a politician and he made a declaration that was quite meaningful apparently.

isrealistine
palestreal

i don't even know what we'd call a single state solution.

Judea?

Personally, I'd let the people who live there decide what their country is called..

The problem started when people from different countries started meddling.

You know for ages I thought Palestinians were Arabs.
During the present day conflict, I kept thinking 'I wonder why the other Arab states don't help'

_<

However, an attempt to restore the past is a flawed pursuit. Given the intervening history it would be unattainable. We now have to disregard the past in order to attain a desirable future.

Seeing as the settlements have been encroaching year on year and continue to do so this becomes a bit sleight-of-hand – what geographical state do you envisage for the Palestinians, if we are going to entirely disregard historical claims? For any fair settlement most people agree we would have to go back to pre-'67 borders at least.

Excuse my point about politicians. But the Palestinians have been so consistently failed by what is laughably termed the 'international community' that I fail to see how anyone can retain any optimism at all – although it is entirely admirable that you do.