Interesting proposal, to say the least.

3 handles #5 so there are only 4 steps. why would you rebuild it THEN modify it. What you talk about though sounds a lot like the United States government and the American Indians.. That didn’t work out so well for them. What makes you think it’d be better in Isreal?

1. Palestinian land stretches …

There never was a country called Palestine. It never had borders, a government, a King, President, Prime Minister or anything else. Palestine is a region, like the Yukon, the North Atlantic, “The South” in the US, or the Mid-East itself.

Before the UN partition of 1947, the region was managed by Britain for about 26 years. For the 500 years before that, it was a colony, or a part, of the Ottoman Empire based in Istanbul.

1. Your call for peace sounds very nice.

2. Israel has a state religion of Judaism similar to the way Great Britain has a state religion of the Church of England. Israel is quite normal. In Jordan and Saudi Arabia, it is against the law for a citizen to be Jewish or even non-Muslim. The punishments are harsh. Israel was founded to protect the Jews after millenia of criminal treatment. There are 22 Arab States.

Many of these Arab and Muslim states have Sharia law, which requires Jews and Christians to be second class citizens and Hindus and Buddhists to be third-class citizens. Look up the word “Dhimmi”. Israel guarantees nearly equal rights to all its citizens regardless of religion — but there is a war on and perfect equality is impractical. If you want to complain about religious discrimination go bother the hard cases, the Muslim Sharia societies.

1. Executing terrorists might help.

2. Representative government including everybody who claims to be a Palestinian will result in the Arabs voting in a dictatorship that discriminates against Jews. This would result in a bloodbath before, during, and after abolition of the Jewish State.

The Arabs do not believe in equality and will use force to execute their will. See the Hamas Covenant and you will be amazed.

Many Palestinians and other Arabs have made clear that a Jewish State is not acceptable and that a two-state solution is not acceptable. The only thing they will accept is Muslim/Arab domination of a Jewish minority. Other Arabs are not so adamant, it is true.

It would be suicidal foolishness for the Jews of Israel to let themselves be governed by the hostile Palestinians.

Have you seen the book “One Country” by Ali Abunimah?

Have you seen the book “One Country” by Ali Abunimah?

No, I’m guessing it promotes a similar idea? I’ll check it out…

Huh?

Wow.

And this from a guy who wrote http://dmiessler.com/archives/1101 and http://dmiessler.com/archives/1095 – you rally against the idea of multi-culturalism and then suggest a solution that will create a multi-cultural nation. Are you not just a little bit NIMBY-ish about this, Daniel?

Moreover, you are offering a logical solution to a problem that is basically religious and emotional. The problem is not about the state, how it’s called and who gets to head it. It’s about two people from two very different cultures – the Arab-Muslim culture and the Western culture that’s prevalent in Israel.

I suggest “The Clash of Civilizations” by Samuel P. Huntington, ISBN 0684844419.

– Arik

… Oh, one more thing.

I like your ICMP article. You definitely have done the research and know what you’re saying.

Have you gone to the same length in this case? I know you’ve been to the middle east, but have you actually lived there? Frankly, I’ve seen so many people say so many things without a modicum of understanding of the situation. I live an hour away from UC Berkeley :-)

– Arik

Arik,

There isn’t really any contradiction in my stances here. The goal is one nation, one people. For that to happen there has to be unity, and this proposal is the first step in that process. Ideally the subcultures would merge into one, and it’ll be great when that happens, but enduring multiculturalism in order to acheive long-term unity is a most worthy compromise.

Remember, the goal hasn’t changed — one nation one people.

Daniel, As was pointed out but not discussed… I can get you life examples of religious persicution. And Isreal aint it…

The stricter Muslim nations deal very harshly (some to the point of outlawed/death) with other religions.

Remember, Israel is a bloodline… it is not simply a religion. Look at it from their prospective. So the real thing is citizenship into that family. Which in tales a religion. It is an odd thing, but a truth.

please re-read Warren’s comments. I do not condemn a Muslim nation for there state religion… why should Isreal be condemned for theirs?

I can get you life examples of religious persicution. And Isreal aint it…

What do you call it when you don’t have equal rights based on your religion?

The stricter Muslim nations deal very harshly (some to the point of outlawed/death) with other religions.

Right, and they’re wrong too. “The other guy was speeding too” isn’t a valid defense.

Remember, Israel is a bloodline… it is not simply a religion.

This is not as simple as you might think it is. You’re probably thinking of the “classic” Jewish bloodline, but there are actually Spanish Jews as well. There is actually racism within the Jewish culture from one “race” to another. So no, it’s not a clearly defined, single bloodline like many Christians in the U.S. think it is.

I do not condemn a Muslim nation for there state religion… why should Isreal be condemned for theirs?

Because we’re sending them billions of dollars a year, and they’re openly racist and religiously biased towards their own people. And as a general rule, we in the U.S. do judge other countries’ religious beliefs when they cross the line. Look at the Taliban, for example. Or Saudi Arabia. There are numerous U.S. efforts to try and get them to change how they treat people, which goes against their religion.

My point is simply that there shouldn’t be a double-standard where we let Israel do whatever they want to their own people while sending them billions of dollars and the best weapons in the world, while we chastise other countries who do engage in similar activities.

Just for the record, by the way, i love Jewish people. So much so that my Palestinian friends and associates don’t like it much. I find my Jewish friends to be some of the most intelligent and funny people I know. I just really love their senses of humor and general approaches to life.

Not only that, but I love the culture they create for themselves. I love their focus on education. I love the fact that they tend to be winners despite constant adversity. They pretty much go wherever, set up, and proceed to dominate. I like that.

So I’m not against the Jews here. I’m against some of what the Israeli government is about, and what they support. But I don’t think Jews should leave that land. They should stay and be Jewish and live and prosper, etc. etc…

All I’m saying is that this should not preclude the Arabs from staying as well — and enjoying the same rights they do. If their respective religions are half as peaceful as they claim they are then it really shouldn’t be a problem.

Daniel,

This is exactly why I wrote what I wrote about being proficient in the subject matter before voicing an opinion.

Your statement about the subcultures merging into one is unreal. The Israeli culture is Western with a Jewish majority, the Palestinians are Arabs – Muslims. Before you make such outlandish claims, tell me if you think that the American culture and the Saudi cultures can merge, and you will have some sense of what’s involved.

Add to that the history of both sides warring for the last decades.

Daniel, if it was that simple it wouldn’t be a problem today. And please be realistic about what you claim.

Oh, yes, I’m human and I’m an Israeli. Ergo, I’m biased.

– Arik

Arik,

I’m not claiming this is easy, simple, or even all that realistic in today’s reality. What I’m saying is that this is the best hope for the region. In other words, this not happening is a guarantee of failure, as the same battles will rage on.

At least if this were to be attempted there would be a new type of battle — a new type of dialog. I agree it would be mayhem, but it’s progress because it’s movement toward a more advanced way of living. I know you think that’s purely subjective, but I think it’s pretty safe to say that having people live together despite their differences is SUPERIOR to killing each other.

I don’t think such statements can be thrown out as subjective. The world is trying to grow up and it’s time that region got on the same page. The first step is integration. From there you work through it (in my opinion by removing the root cause of religion).

The alternative is that the strong continues to wipe out the weak, and I think that’s clearly a less tenable approach. You sound hopeless, and I’m close to that myself, but we have to do SOMETHING to move towards the light of logic. This is that something. It’s the only something that we have.

This is exactly why I wrote what I wrote about being proficient in the subject matter before voicing an opinion. Your statement about the subcultures merging into one is unreal.

I am very aware of the situation. I don’t need an education on the matter. What I’m proposing is simply the only option that doesn’t involve endless massacre. And even then it only involves slightly less endless massacre.

You want the real solution? The real solution is for both parties to realize that we are for all intents and purposes alone in this world, and that they need to abandon superstition and embrace reason and compassion. That’s the real answer.

THAT is unrealistic. The other solution is less so. It’s the only option that I can see, my friend.

Okay, I realize their is a religious bias and I am aware of the none bloodline jews. And yes they do discriminate amongst themselves by bloodline. But, my point is what you said in your reply… it is not clearly defined. IE black and white in America or Christian and Muslim in religion. It is more detailed than that. As you later posted it very well could be unrealistic.

As for the, we have a say the way we do in other nations because the billions of dollars

First, we do send billions to them and lots of others… as you mentioned Saudi Arabia, not exactly the most Christian friendly environment. And Muslims do get a certain basic rights in Israel.

If you want to look at the issue it is an issue of ownership. The Jews were driven from their land and occupied by Muslims. Their land was given back to them by the British, who had controlling interest and the Muslims have sought for thier disctruction ever since… hmm, and why should they be given equal footing. I agree you can not hold an entire religion at bay due to a few peoples actions, however unless one is nieve of the Middle East one would not argue that only fringe groups say that Isreal should be destroyed. Perhaps only fringe groups take up arms, but there are supporters and backers enbedded deep into the Muslim world in the Middle East.

If a blue car comes and smashes your mailbox every few days and you call the police you want them to look for the blue car… if a Muslim blows himself up and kills Jewish people, then Israel should seek to protect themselves from bombers, which means scrutinizing the Palestine more. Just as we should be watching more for middle aged middle easterners than 86 year old white women flying from FL to TN. Just makes sense. That is not racist, it is reasoning.

I suppose I do agree that they should seek to be more fair among their own citizenry but I also support their right to heavily scrutinize would be terrorist. Terrorist which are not political but religious. So if you have a religious faction moving against you, who do you protect yourself from? That religious group. As your topic speaker stated… they should no more call for the destruction of Israel, but the fact is he is in the minority and I support Israel’s right to defend their land.

It would be nice to logically separate the two, but you can not… the religious bias and terrorist activity is connected. So far Israel has tried to buy peace with land and every time it has failed… so what is the answer. And:

“The real solution is for both parties to realize that we are for all intents and purposes alone in this world, and that they need to abandon superstition and embrace reason and compassion. That’s the real answer.”

If you mean superstition as in their religion, you are both wrong in your expectation and wrong in your logic… and wrong in your belief. That goes back to the ‘freedom or religion’ aspect… they can believe they are God’s choosen people and the Muslims can believe the same. And I would not ask either to give that up… from a political position. Being a Christian… well you know what I would say to both.

Daniel,

Hm… I was trying to find a paragraph in your text I can start answering, but I’m afraid they are equally unchallengeable. Not because they are all solid, it’s because you believe what you say to the extent that I need to challenge the entire belief system rather than a single belief.

Instead, I will attempt to give a solution to the illegal immigration problem the US has. It is a realistic solution. It will cause some chaos to begin with but the end result will be worth it.

The solution is ingeniously simple: Abolish the US-Mexico immigration. Create a single USA, with 83 states. The new country will have 410,000,000 people, 11,000,000 sq km of land. The GDP will (initially) be 14×10^12, which is about $34K per capita. Not a lot less than the existing US $43K5, and a lot more than Mexico’s $10K5. Public debt will go down for the US.

The official US language must change, to include Spanish. I mean, if Canada can deal with English and French, I’m sure the US can handle it. Perhaps this will eventually facilitate the move to a metric measurement system.

I’m sure it will not be easy in the beginning. All those original Mexicans will travel north to the more rich countries to find work, but eventually businesses will move down south to reduce costs and labor. In say 100-200 years a sort of equilibrium will be reached.

I think it’s a great solution, one which, once implemented, although not easy, will solve most of the illegal US immigration, currently comprising mostly of Mexicans. Once all those Mexicans are legal and no longer need to be afraid to work in a decent job and pay taxes, the US will gain a productive people.

Even the religions match – the US is predominantly Christian (76%) and Mexico is similarly so (95%). The goal is one nation, one people. For that to happen there has to be unity, and this proposal is the first step in that process. Ideally the subcultures would merge into one, and it’ll be great when that happens, but enduring multiculturalism in order to acheive long-term unity is a most worthy compromise.

What do you think?

My data was taken from the CIA factbook, https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

– Arik

What do you think?

I think I love you. That’s what I think. I am glad you post here; this is precisely the type of debate I enjoy the most, i.e. the kind that can change my mind.

Let me help you out here, Arik. The way to to change my mind is to convince me that the Palestinians don’t have a claim to the land that Israel inhabits. That’s how to make me drop the entire thing and side with Israel.

If you can’t do that then it doesn’t matter how infeasible it is; it just doesn’t. And that is precisely the reason why your very cool argument doesn’t hold any water. Do you know why? Because Mexico doesn’t have a claim to the United States. Mexico doesn’t even think they do. There are a few disputes every once in a while over certain southwestern states, but the world is pretty much agreed that the U.S.’s borders are solid and undisputed.

This is in stark contrast to the situation with the Palestinians. The world in general thinks that land is their home. And that belief (which I admit I have little data about) is what I am basing my entire argument off of.

Think of it this way — using your U.S. analogies: It wasn’t feasible or logical to dismantle American slavery when an entire economy was supported by slave labor. It also wasn’t particularly practical to start shipping black people into white schools. It sparked violence, it disruped the education of both groups, etc.

The point here is that we should be guided by our morals, not by what’s feasible or practical. You make the world conform to what is right — that’s how you proceed. So do that for me. I swear to you I would be very grateful. I admit massive ignorance here…do the Palestinians have a claim to that land. Do they have a right to it? Or was it basically empty when Israel was formed?

Use your powers of argument to show me why that is not their home, and I’ll use mine to illustrate how stupid my previous position was.

Okay, so it’s a land ownership thing then…

First the concept of land ownership. You and I are living in a land that has been owned by various Indian tribes, from way before Columbus has made his faithful journey into the unknown. Do they own the land?

Then this land was literally taken by force from the Aztecs and the Inka and the Maya and the myriad of smaller tribes that inhabited the area. Was that moral? You might claim that according to the moral standards of that time it was. Wrong. To prove that, just read El Requerimiento, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Requerimiento – a document that the conquiatadores had to read to the native Americans before being allowed to kill them. Yes it was read to them in Spanish. This was after it has been officially decided that native Americans have souls.

And then Britain took control over some of North America. Does that mean that the Spanish still own it and it is now occupied?

Let’s go back to Israel. The country was, originally, much like the Americas, mostly inhabited by tribes. The first to change that were the Jews who escaped slavery in Egypt. In 1000BC King David took over Jerusalem from the tribe that happened to occupy that particular place. The Jews got to keep that piece of land for a few hundred years before being driven out of there by the Assyrians, then let back by Saragon king of Persia, and then kicked out again by the Babylonians and then whatever left was dispersed by the Romans. The romans have renamed the place Palestine, after some long-gone tribes in the area of Gaza, as part of their effort to keep the Jews from returning.

Then the land changed “ownership” several times, always being occupied by one nation or another. Take a look at http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/imperial-history.html for a nice map.

The latest group of people to occupy this piece of land, Jews or Zionists, came there in several waves over the 18th and 19th century. Having no military force, they have bought the land, and these records exist to this day (in the form of land ownership documents from the Ottoman empire). These massive land buyouts were done by Zionist organizations funded by Jewish millionaires like the Edmond De Rothschild, Montessori and fund raising organizations.

Israeli independence then gave a right to the state of Israel to form a government over some of those lands. It did not relinquish ownership by those organizations and individuals over the rest of the land, it merely formed a state that governed some of it. The fact that the day after the British left Israel in 1948 all of the surrounding states declared war on Israel was conductive to Israel because it enabled the capture some of that land.

So, who owns the US, and who owns Israel?

You have wisely mentioned that “The world has pretty much agreed…” – yes international consensus is important. I bet that if we keep Israel for another 100-200 years there will be an international consensus that Israel is what it is. The so called consensus is created by first taking by force and then after you got it for some time everyone believes it is yours. I bet you there was hardly consensus about the British colonies refusing to pay taxes to Britain in 1776. Today there is.

Likewise morals. Was it moral to butcher native Americans? Was it moral for king David to take over Israel on 1000BC? By the moral “standards” of these times, maybe. I don’t know. I’m pretty sure the Inca didn’t think it moral, nor did the You know what I think about morality – it’s all subjective and constantly changing. Todays moral values are today’s moral values, and they are not uniform across cultures or even groups within cultures. So before you want to conform to some morality, please specify which morality.

The only written proof of land ownership in Israel is Ottoman era documents, that do exist today and are archived, showing it was bought by several organizations. The Palestinian claim to the entire land of Israel is not only bogus and populist, it is also illegal, if you agree that the Ottomans (Muslim rule, by the way) have a right to control the changing of ownership of the land at the time when they had it. If you do not believe that, then how do you define land ownership? Under some definitions, we currently live on either Spanish or Native American land.

– Arik

Very interesting, stuff, Arik.

So, according to what you’ve learned, do the Palestinians have any claim to the land? Do you believe in a two-state solution, or do you think they should just disperse and be re-absorbed into surrounding Muslim countries?

Yes, there were pre-1948 Palestinians who owned land in Israel. A day after Israel’s declaration of independence, the surrounding Arab states have waged war against the new country. To better facilitate their travel through the surrounding territories and to prevent Arab casualties, the Arab states have persuaded the Palestinians living there to leave their homes temporarily, offering them the spoils of war – the Israeli property after Israel is annihilated. Yes, the stated goal of that war was to annihilate a country established by the united nation.

About 70% of the Arabs answered the call, and left. They didn’t imagine that Israel would win or that they will spend literally the rest of their lives away from their original home. The 30% that were left had become Israeli citizens with equal rights. By the way, where did you come up with not paying the same taxes? The only difference in rights as far as I know is military service – Israeli Arabs don’t have to do the 3 year compulsory service, the idea behind it is that they can’t be forced to potentially fight against their ethnic brothers. They can do it, and in some Arab communities it is commonplace (example – Bedouin communities). There are some benefits to serving in the army, and they are, to the best of my knowledge, worth less than 3 years of minimum wages.

So do these 70% pre-1948 Palestinians deserve to go back to their land? I don’t know. It’s a subject of debate. If they have rights to any land, this is it. I can see their case, I don’t think it’s a very strong one. Then again, I’m biased.

Do I believe in a two-state solution? Oh no, I will not fall into this pit. I do not claim to know what the solution is. Having intimate knowledge of the people involved, I would say that a two state solution is more realistic, but, I do not think that it will solve the problem. About absorption to other countries – it’s unfeasible because the surrounding countries will never ever take them. In fact in the Israeli-Egyptian peace accord Israel had to take the Gaza strip – Egypt wouldn’t have an agreement in which it is still in control of Gaza. And as for Jordan – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September_in_Jordan

There is no easy solution. I do not purport to know what the solution is, so I don’t go ahead and suggest one. It’s that simple. I might discuss some aspects of the conflict and speak my (biased) mind, but that’s about it.

– Arik

So do these 70% pre-1948 Palestinians deserve to go back to their land? I don’t know. It’s a subject of debate. If they have rights to any land, this is it. I can see their case, I don’t think it’s a very strong one. Then again, I’m biased.

Hmm, interesting.

Do I believe in a two-state solution? Oh no, I will not fall into this pit. I do not claim to know what the solution is.

Well, understand that when I say I “know” the solution, what I am actually doing is putting my idea out there for challenge — challenges like the one you made. In short, I’m trying to push ideas in a convincing fashion in order to find hidden people such as yourself that can show me what I need to consider more.

Oh, and it worked. As a result of your comments I now have a better understanding of my own ignorances. Specifically, the entire argument I laid out hinges on Palestinian claim to the land. And THAT is where effort should be put by the international community.

A debate should be organized on an international scale. And if they come to the conclusion that the Palestinians have a claim to the land in the way that I thought they did when I wrote my argument, then I stand by my “solution”. But if it’s determined that they don’t have much claim, as you put forth, then another option has to be looked at.

The key for me, however, is realizing that people like you and I need to form solid opinions on these matters, and not apologize for them or feel bad because we have them. They should be informed — no doubt — and they should be flexible pending new information. But one should not shy away from any debate in which one party has to be told that they are wrong.

This brings us back to our relativism debate. I believe that at some point we have to set this concept aside and solve real-world problems as best we can, from a secular point of view. The advantage we have here is that both parties are not-secular. So we get to solve the problem in a way that doesn’t favor either side. Ignore the holy books, look at the history. This is how we solve the problem — at least to the best of our ability — as a world community.

Oh, and I totally agree that the perception of ownership comes from public opinion and the passage of time. Unfortunate, but true. I just don’t think Israel is winning that battle.

So, basically, what you’re saying is that to get a better understanding, you put out half-baked ideas and thoughts, which you know your knowledge of is incomplete, and then watch people claim otherwise and learn from it?

I don’t know, man.

– Arik