XPost: soc.history.war.misc, sci.military.naval, or.politics
XPost: seattle.politics, soc.history.medieval

Tomaž Vargazon
Follow
Practicing atheistTue

What solution would you bring to the table about the current
Israel-Palestine war?
There really is just one solution: use the same standards as for any
other conflict in the same time period.

Armenians and Greeks in modern-day Turkey

The most perverse myth about the issue of Israel and Palestine is the
situation is somehow unique, strange, different, unequalled and without parallel in word history. The only example usually cited is the exodus
of Israelites from Palestine by the Romans and Palestinians drew from
that to create their own version of exodus, so they would have the same
claim to sympathy as the Jews did.

Back in the real world, when the “catastrophe” happened (Palestinians
fled or were forced from Palestine), they weren’t called Palestinians
yet. They called themselves Syrians for the most part, a smaller but
still significant portion called themselves Egyptians. Syria and Egypt
were two of the states that attacked Israel, lost the war and
consequently the territory the people now called Palestinians lived on.
In retalliation the Arab stated expelled Jewish population from their
territory by force or threat of force, leaving these people with nowhere
but Israel to settle in.

Now the conflict is who this land really belongs to and by what right
does Israel claim the land.

Here’s how it was done in some of the other cases in the 1910–1950 period:

Greeks were expelled from Turkey and resettled in Greece proper. Turks
were expelled from Greece and resettled in Turkey proper.
Poland took territory from Germany. Germans were forcefully resettled
into Germany proper
USSR took territory from Poland. Poles were forcefully resettled into
Poland proper, as a nice thank you for being the first people to oppose
Hitler.
Czechoslovakia was liberated from German occupation and expelled ethnic
Germans of Sudetenland. Germans were resettled into Germany proper.
Yugoslavia liberated itself from German and Italian occupation and
expelled ethnic Italians and Germans. Italians were resettled in Italy
proper, Germans went to the USA for the most part, although some also
resettled in Germany proper.
India expelled some 8 million Muslims who were resettled in Pakistan.
Pakistan expelled approximately 7 million Hindus, who were resettled in
India.
None of these led to long-term conflict or war. No one created a new
national identity for the disposesed people so that they wouldn’t have a
land to settle in and would be forced into suffering of generations. It
was only in Israel and Palestine that a different solution was
attempted, with horrific results.

Maybe we should try the same approach as was attempted everywhere else
instead? The results are manifestly less bad than in the case of Israel
and Palestine. Arab states who expelled Jews take in a number of
Palestinians proportional to the number of Jews they forced out, give
them citizenship, compensate them for land lost in the war and call it a
day. That’s the only solution one can consider “fair”.

And before you say “not all Arabs are alike!”, here’s the actual map of German diversity:


What makes you think all Germans are alike? They have two major
religions (Lutheran and Catholic) and historically two competing
political systems (autocracy of Prussia/Austria and more liberal
republicanism of Confederation of the Rhine). There is as much if not
more diversity in present-day Germany than in the Arab leauge.

The problem of Israel and Palestine can be solved by forcing Arab states
to take care of the mess they created for their own gain. The problem of Palestinians can be solved by applying the same solution that was
applied to any other people in their situation.

Anyone who thinks this is somehow unacceptable should first explain why
should Palestinians be special and treated differently. I wish you good
luck with that.

28K views
View 1,565 upvotes
View 30 shares
1 of 36 answers
306 comments from
Janos
and more

Janos
· Tue
The most perverse myth about the issue of Israel and Palestine is the
situation is somehow unique, strange, different, unequalled and without parallel in word history.

A strong contender is the myth that the suffering, pain and death
Palestinians suffered in the decades since picking the “we’ll never
accept Israel” option will somehow be worth it. That the Jews will one
day disappear, from the river to the sea, all that. Wunderwaffe all over
again.

Many nations shared this belief while fighting a lost war. The lucky
ones were offered some kind of peace.


Tomaž Vargazon
· Tue
Even if that were to happen, Palestinians would just fight each other to
the death, until the most brutal faction rules in Palestine and the days
of Gaza siege by IDF seem like a pleasant dream.


· 23h
Your idea is a great pragmatic solution. Your response above is why it
will never happen. Jordan, Egypt and Syrian have no interest in having Palestinians resettle in their countries, forcefully or voluntarily.
They tried that already and wound up with The Arab Spring and Black
September. In recent years ferment has seemed to follow Palestinians
around like an ugly shadow, whether or not their combativeness is an understandable reaction to constantly being treated poorly I will let
others debate. As we have seen in many places around the world in recent
years there is less and less tolerance for anyone who will not live
peacefully within their society and until Palestinians show themselves
as a peace loving people they will have great difficulty finding
anywhere they can call home.


Tomaž Vargazon
· 8h
The only solution is to set up one or more states for Palestinians to
live in.

I contend the nations who started aggressive wars against Israel and
lost land Palestinians lived on should provide the necessary territory
and resources to that end.

Simon Long
· 15h
Agreed, 2 state solution, or 3 state, a state for those who want to make
the best of it and not save up for a war with Israel in every cease fire.

Gerald McCloy
· Tue
So, basically the Thunderdome?

David Thornley
· 1h
Um, Israel is a nuclear power. Should Israel be destroyed, I’d expect a
fair number of Arab and other Muslim cities (such as in Iran) to be
destroyed also, with a very high probability that Mecca would be a toxic wasteland that would seriously injure or kill any Muslim on a hajj (one
of the Five Pillars of Islam).


Janos
· 40m
Indeed. The WTF-ness of continuing a war with Israel is… considerable. A
bit like Wile E. Coyote trying to catch Road Runner’s older brother,
Road Crusher, who can run just as fast but can also beat Coyote to a
pulp. And has a gun.

Hope like hell he keeps on running. But what if he has enough, stops and
waits for you?


Tim Chiswell
· Tue
In a different world, id agree with you. Problem is, this isn't the
1940s any more. Times have changed, and what was politically acceptable
to the international community in the wake of a long war with casualties running into 9 figures, simply wouldn't fly today.

Not to mention that Syria, Egypt and (especially) Jordan and Lebanon
have had very bad experiences with accepting large numbers of
Palestinians into their countries - while neighbouring Arab nations may
be happy to cheer for the Palestinians, none of them actually want a
million+ of them turning up and forming a nation-within-a-nation on
their home soil.

I don't know what the solution is, but every conceivable approach
(including just leaving things as they are) is deeply, fundamentally unacceptable to very considerable numbers of people people, and powerful interests… and, again, this isn't the 1940s, when, after years of having
to think the unthinkable, simply moving a few million people around
didn't seem so extreme…


Tomaž Vargazon
· Tue
I follow the principle of proportionality and least harm. What I propose
gives Palestinians new homeland(s), with a hope for a brighter future
and doesn’t involve any new genocide(s) anywhere.

If nation within a nation is a genuine concern then the many Arab states
can also form new state(s) for Palestinians alone out of their
territory. It’s hardly an issue. They lost wars and claim they want to
make good for the people displaced by their misguided attempts at
military conquest.

Not a problem, I fully support that. But land comes from their part of
their world. They can’t expect other people to compensate for their
mistakes.

Jeff Robdine
· Tue
They pretty much had gaza to themselves and we’re seeing how that worked out…


Max Green
· Tue
That’s very much oversimplified. They definitely could have done better
with it, but when Israel still controls their borders for them and has
veto rights (which they used) on building ports and airports, then they aren’t actually in control. Israel wanted them to still be dependant on
them, and they got that.

David North
· 19h
If Gazans were practicing free democracy without religious factional
duress fro internal militant groups vowing to destroy Israel, they might
have had that autonomy long ago.

Lawrence de Martin
· 17h
Gaza is not enough land with not enough water to feed 2.4 million
people, and no “natural resources” to export. Their education system has been stunted by Israel for decades, so they don’t have a skilled
workforce to export manufactured goods. Rather, 2/3 of Gaza suffer from malnutrition becasue Israel did not allow importation of fresh fruits
and vegetables.

Michael Griffiths
· 17h
Hamas literally dug up the pipes Israel had laid to provide water to the
Gaza Strip. They took photos of them converting pipes to missiles and
posted them online for goodness sake. If they have no water, its surely
not Israel's fault.

Ken McCarthy
· 15h
They didn't start with 2.4 million people. It's the only “genocide”
where the population grows.

David North
· 19h
All true but we are barreling down the throat of the age of uninformed nihilism.

We’re gonna fix all your problems…let’s start by tearing everything down first so we can begin afresh….and of course we realize this requires
social and international conflict and deconstruction of civilization,
it’s our raison d'être!

The 1917 revolution all over again.

Really, it will work this time!

We promise.

Dano Letiner
· Tue
“The bad experiences of Arab states with Palestinians.” - The reason for the bad (violent experience) is not because they accepted Palestinians
as such. Rather it is because when the Arab states accepted
Palestinians, they did so conditionally that they would remain separate
from the rest of the population, with a distinct leadership (PLO) and
with a separate military-police force separate from the accepting
country - all in order to keep the Arab-Israeli conflict going
perpetually. Had the Arab states accepted the Arabs from Mandatory
Palestine, like Israel accepted Jews from the Arab states, Greeks
originally living in Turkey, Germans in Eastern Europe, Hindus in
Pakistan…. the conflict would have ended right there and there. This
clear explanation is never talked about in the Western press, and the
plight of Palestinians is used to justify the continuation of the
conflict and pressure only the Israeli side to make concessions, despite winning a defensive wars they did not start in 1948 and in 1967 (after
straight of Tiran was closed, Egypt and Syria mobilized for war and the
Arab league openly called for military destruction of Israel).


Akash Khot
· Tue
India Pakistan case is different than what you have described. There was
no Pakistan before 1947, it was only India.

Muslims in India claimed that once the British grant independence, they
can't live under a Hindu majority India and need a separate nation.
There were riots and mass killings to further this demand.

Britishers created the partition plan. More riots followed on both sides
of this new border. Muslims on Indian side and Hindus on Pakistan side
moved to the other side either by choice (those who were demanding new
nation) or out of fear (after riots ensued).

India never expelled Muslim people as an administrative action. India to
this date has more Muslim population than many Muslim countries.

The similarity with Israel Palestine solution is the involvement of the
British Empire in forming the two nation theory.


Alistair Clark
· 17h
It was Indians who wanted the “two nation” solution, Britain merely acquiesced in it and tried to implement it. Sure, it was the Muslim side
of Indian politics that pushed for it but, Kashmir to one side, it
wasn’t a terrible outcome. Kashmir should have gone to Pakistan, that
was the main “stuff up” that occurred.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)