This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Israel - Pride - Swallow - Please

I am almost certainly going to be given a history lesson here. Which is nice. But I'd rather the emphasis of this discussion was on the reality now.
If Israel made concerted attempts to negotiate with the Palestinians and always favoured diplomacy over violence, would the situation be resolved more quickly?
Furthermore, if Israel gave up the Muslim quarter of Jerusalem then peace would surely be found more quickly?

I say this because then the international community would be FORCED to come to Israel's defence. Israel having made such big efforts to find peace would find favour with some countries whose general stance is ambivalent or pro-Palestinian (France say). I suspect the amount of terrorist attacks would decrease. Muslims would have their part of the third holiest Muslim city. What could they possibly complain about?
As I understand it when Israel previously offered Mr Arafat 95% of their demands it was turned down because Jerusalem wasn't a part of the offer. Part of Jerusalem is obviously important to the Palestinians.

Also it would be nice for the Palestinians to have a block of land instead of pockets.

I dont see why either side would refuse this. Although I'm a naive Westerner with interest on neither side...

Comments?

Reply 1

L i b

19

I think Israel is stuck in the situation that if it makes such gestures then they cannot be taken back and, chances are, there will be nothing to gain from them as attacks on its people by extremists will continue.

An unenviable position.

And incidently, isn't the Western Wall in the 'Muslim portion' of Jerusalem?

Reply 2

samba

6

No, thats in the jewish quarter. The dome of the rock is in the muslim quarter.

And no. If they got that, they'd just push for more.

Reply 3

Phonicsdude

OP

19

I will reply more fully tomorrow, but what the hell do the Palestinians want if they turned down the Muslim Quarter of Jerusalem?
What are they playing at? Anyone would think they wanted conflict...!

Reply 4

TKR

15

Phonicsdude

What could they possibly complain about?

Oh, I'm sure they'd find something.

Reply 5

bohemian

Hey Bismarck, very tiny point but I read 96% of the West Bank was offered. Am I wrong?

By the by, Phonics Dude, you said the Palestinians deserve a state of the own which is NOT in pockets. Well the Peel commission (1937?) offered Jews a state which in 2 parts, and they accepted, while the Palestinians rejected it. It's funny that the two sides are so unequal in their quests for statehood.

Reply 6

bohemian

Right, I understand. Apparently Arafat thought Hamas would assassinate him if he accepted the offer. Unfortunately, but unsuprisingly, all that happened was that terrorism increased after Arafat's rejection.

Reply 7

Nutter

14

Interesting discussion going on.

I just have one question that's slightly OT, but do forgive me. I'm also reasonably certain that I can find the answer elsewhere on the internet but let me ask here first.

Why's the West Bank named as such when it's located at the eastern part of Israel? :confused:

Reply 8

Phonicsdude

OP

19

Bismarck: I do not believe most countries that hold a pro-Palestinian stance do so because they like one or the other countries more. Rather it is the actions of the countries which cause them to fall on one side or the other. And anyway, Israel has the unflinching support of the US. And this support, unlike the support of the UK or France for the Palestinian cause, is of immense practical value.

Bohemian: First my name is Phonicsdude. All one word. Yes I will be pedantic about it. Secondly, I dont think it is right that Israel should have to settle for pockets of land either.

So come on then all you pro-Palestinians. Why have you refused such generous offers in the past? Is it true that you wanted, as Bismarck states, the right of return?
Israel was created specifically to give the jews a homeland. If it is going to be mostly muslim then that defeats the point of Israel's creation..!
If you believe that Israel should never have been created (a view I share: although it is worth mentioning I am a fierce defender of Israel's right to exist peacefully and free from the threat of terrorism) then surely your anger should be vented against the Western countries that created Israel..?! As far as I know attacks on the West by muslim terrorist organisations are a fairly recent phenomenon. Certainly the attacks against Israel over the past 60 years have been far fiercer than the attack against the West.
At the very least you understand the Jews. If you were offered a homeland, having suffered centuries of behaviour which is to be abhored, would you not snap up the opportunity to build yourself a homeland? Finally the Jews have a safe haven where they won't be bullied by the world! (Again, I don't think Israel should have been created but you can empathise a little..). Violence against Israel was surely misdirected. It is the West who should have felt the full force of your wrath?
In any event why use violence? Why not diplomacy?

The Palestinian cause has a lot to answer for.

Reply 9

Phonicsdude

OP

19

Bismarck

Do you really believe international politics works that way? Most Muslim countries never bothered to recognize Israel, even though Israel wasn't occupying any land until 1967 (that's 18 years they had to recognize it). With a vast majority of African and Asian countries being a part of the Non-Aligned Movement or allies of the USSR, why would they possibly back Israel over their allies? Did France suddenly start liking Israel less after the former was kicked out of Algeria? Because until that point, France was a solid Israeli ally. Did the US magically start liking Israel more around 1970? Because until that point, the US have little if any support to Israel. Did the Soviet Union stop liking Israel after 1949, seeing that its satellites were the biggest providers of arms to Israel during its Independence wars? Furthermore, why is Turkey an Israeli ally despite liking the Palestinians more? International politics isn't that simple. Countries back their allies in areas where their own interests aren't at stake. Your random African country would prefer to maintain good relations with their rich Arab allies than to take a moral position on Israel.

I had "Western" nations in mind when I made those comments. I dont understand your point about France. It seems to me you are prompting the answer "yes". After France was kicked out of Algeria (to use your words) there was a lot of bitterness and resentment towards Algerians. How would this translate into greater support for the Arab world and therefore less support for Israel?
France has always had strong ties with the Arab world. *shrugs*

And yet Israel wasn't occupying any land until '67. This didn't stop hundreds of attacks against Israel every single year. A good portion of them were carried out by Arabs living in the West Bank (who called themselves the Fedayin), despite the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem being controlled by Jordan at the time.

I take it this point is backing me up and not confrontational. Because I sympathise and find such attacks unjustifiable.

Reply 10

Bismarck

13

Phonicsdude

I had "Western" nations in mind when I made those comments. I dont understand your point about France. It seems to me you are prompting the answer "yes". After France was kicked out of Algeria (to use your words) there was a lot of bitterness and resentment towards Algerians. How would this translate into greater support for the Arab world and therefore less support for Israel?
France has always had strong ties with the Arab world. *shrugs*

Quite easily. France was hated in the Arab world as long as it fought the war in Algeria. The second the war ended, the Arab world was willing to improve relations with France. And since France no longer needed Israel to balance against the Arab world, it dumped it as an ally.

Reply 11

Phonicsdude

OP

19

How are we defining "ally" by the way? There isn't an official friend and foe list.
What has France done to show that it is anti-Israel?

Pro-palestinians: You are not off the hook. This little side street Bis and I are headed down doesn't mean you dont have questions to answer.

Reply 12

Bismarck

13

Phonicsdude

How are we defining "ally" by the way? There isn't an official friend and foe list.
What has France done to show that it is anti-Israel?

Formal alliances are rare. I'm using ally to signify someone who usually backs another country on a wide range of issues.

Other than always be one of the first to call for the end of Israeli "aggression", maintaining good relations with states that sought to wipe Israel off the map, and providing generous funding to those states?

Edit: Since my dissertation in on this topic (alliances not the Middle East), I might as well give a formal definition:

[An alliance is] a formal or informal relationship of security cooperation between two or more states and involving mutual expectations of some degree of policy coordination or security issues under certain conditions in the future. Neither the degree of commitment nor the specific form of policy coordination or conditions under which it would take place need to be explicit.

Reply 13

Agent Smith

11

Bismarck

They wanted the right of return, which they knew Israel couldnt' agree to, since that would lead to a Muslim majority in Israel. They never had any intention of accepting a deal (let's not forget that Hamas doesn't even recognize the '93 Oslo Accords). Meanwhile, Israel offered all of Gaza, eastern Jerusalem, and 90% of the West Bank, and was willing to give up more if the Palestinians presented a tolerable counter-offer.

Hmm. Isn't there a right to freedom of movement enshrined in the UN Charter? Or am I thinking EU?

Reply 14

Phonicsdude

OP

19

There is in the EU. Im not for the UN. You have to obtain a visa to go to many countries who are a part of the UN.

So Bismarck, is maintaining a good relationship with Israel AND many Arab countries impossible?
As far as I know France has always denounced (or at least never spoken in favour) of terrorist attacks against Israel...

Reply 15

Bismarck

13

Phonicsdude

There is in the EU. Im not for the UN. You have to obtain a visa to go to many countries who are a part of the UN.

So Bismarck, is maintaining a good relationship with Israel AND many Arab countries impossible?
As far as I know France has always denounced (or at least never spoken in favour) of terrorist attacks against Israel...

It's not impossible, but most countries outside the Middle East have little to gain from allying with Israel. And trying to ally with both does makes alliance less strong than it could be.

It doesn't mean much when one condemns terrorism, but supports the groups and/or countries that carry it out/fund it.

Agent Smith

Hmm. Isn't there a right to freedom of movement enshrined in the UN Charter? Or am I thinking EU?

You certainly can't move to a country without its permission, and you definitely can't immigrate there with its permission...

Reply 16

dismal_laundry

15

Bismarck

They wanted the right of return, which they knew Israel couldnt' agree to, since that would lead to a Muslim majority in Israel. They never had any intention of accepting a deal (let's not forget that Hamas doesn't even recognize the '93 Oslo Accords). Meanwhile, Israel offered all of Gaza, eastern Jerusalem, and 90% of the West Bank, and was willing to give up more if the Palestinians presented a tolerable counter-offer.

A Muslim majority has been forecast for quite some time, and although disallowing the right of return for Muslims will postpone it, it won't prevent it on present trends.

Reply 17

dismal_laundry

15

Nutter

Interesting discussion going on.

I just have one question that's slightly OT, but do forgive me. I'm also reasonably certain that I can find the answer elsewhere on the internet but let me ask here first.

Why's the West Bank named as such when it's located at the eastern part of Israel? :confused:

Because it's on the west bank of the Jordan River.