-4

In 1947, the UN proposed the following partition of Mandatory Palestine.

enter image description here

A year later, in 1948, the Arabs went to war against the jews, in opposition to this plan. They lost. Israel took even more land than the plan proposed.

In the decades to follow, more wars and armed conflicts occured between the Arabs and the Israelis - most of them started by the Arabs. The Arabs lost all of them, and each time Israel took more land and control.

We are where we are today because the Arabs refused the original two-state solution. Why is that then considered a viable solution today? Why have the Arabs changed their minds? How can the Israelis be expected to trust the Arabs to follow through with this solution when multiple armed conflicts have already occurred as a direct result of Arab opposition to this solution?

Improve this question
4
  • 2
    One wonders when reading this diatribe what your preferred solution would consist of. Mass deportation?
    – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica
    Commented Aug 3 at 17:30
  • I would say that the premise is flawed here. The conflict didn't start because of the proposed solution. It started before and the solution was and still is the best shot at solving the conflict. Unfortunately it couldn't be solved so far and many people have died in the past. What this question is missing is research. There must be tons of literature by the proponents of the two state solution about why they think it's the best solution.
    – NoDataDumpNoContribution
    Commented Aug 4 at 5:53
  • 1
    @NoDataDumpNoContribution How do you measure "best"? Judging from history, Palestinian leadership is inevitably corrupt, violent, virulently antisemitic, and willing to sacrifice its own people for the destruction of Israel. A Palestinian state would be no different, and would exacerbate the conflict exponentially with the greater resources and legitimacy available to it as a state.
    – Zev Spitz
    Commented Aug 13 at 10:46
  • 1
    @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica No, the way forward must be to force Palestinians to choose. If they can collectively accept Jews as human, entitled to individual and collective rights, and thus accept Israel as the engine of ensuring those rights - no conflict. But if they continue to insist Jews don't deserve individual or collective rights, they shouldn't be pandered to, and ought to go be miserable somewhere else.
    – Zev Spitz
    Commented Aug 13 at 10:56

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
7

You know this is a complicated question that causes reasonable people that agree on almost everything else to just about get physical acting out.

Consider this - you make peace with your enemies, not your friends.

First - When is the starting point? 1948? 1929? 500AD? Some other date? valid arguements can be made for each.

Second - The Realpolitik of the situation. Israel isn't going to just go "poof" and disappear. (Sorry to those who wish it would). Neither will the Arabs that refer to themselves as Palestinians. (Sorry to those who wish they would).

Third - Iran is backing multiple groups to cause unrest and destablize the region. One of the goals to limit and reverse other Arab countries normalizing relations with Israel. ** This point tends to get overlooked in many conversations. **

What likely has to happen to keep it viable? Eliminating third parties with anti-Israel agendas from the process. For example: Hamas, Hezbollah, even some of the NGOs.

Why is a two state solution viable? Because long-term, there is no other solution for peace that provides for all parties to exist.

A two state solution will provide a clear path to:

  • The settlements (in the westbank), because it whose land it is will no longer be fluid. To clarify - then there won't be likely to have settlements or at least people making arguments that they are legal in some cases.
  • Provide a method for economic growth for the Palestinians. This is a major point. Currently multiple generations have lived in poverty or close to it.
  • Provide a path to normal relations with Israel.

The list can go on.

Breaking the grip of anti-Israel radicals is likely before a two state solution is viable. The stated reasons from the pundits are to not reward Hamas.

As a note to some of the comments, referring to both sides "are shit to some extent" really misses the point that majority of people - 99.999% of people want to live in peace. And - this is important - don't implicitly hate people that arent the same as them.

Improve this answer
7
  • The doggy issue is #2. If one of the sides (or even just a sizeable part of one of the sides) believe that just by applying enough force the other side is going to disappear (war, attacks, colonization, expulsion, and others), then that side can decide that a two state solution is not needed. And compromise with an enemy is always unpopular.
    – SJuan76
    Commented Aug 4 at 15:19
  • @SJuan76 I don't want to sound like the crazies, but the little snippets that are shown on the news aren't how the majority of the people see the goals. Ignore the few loudest on all sides and #2 becomes less of a problem. Just consider it.
    – DogBoy37
    Commented Aug 4 at 16:29
  • that you said Why is a two state solution viable? Because long-term, there is no other solution for peace **that provides for all parties to exist**, has an if condition which makes the statement a loop.
    – owari
    Commented Aug 5 at 19:43
  • However, two-state solution could be a solution if the two people was not separated by blood and hatred. Suppose a kid has lost all his/her families except an older brother, can the kid say let start from the beginning like I never had a family and live a life in peace with those who killed my beloved ones? ... So maybe the two-state solution is not viable now as it could be in 1947 if it was based on justice. Therefore, i think there is still a point in the question that you have not answered yet, the feasibility of the solution beside the viability in your words ...
    – owari
    Commented Aug 5 at 19:48
  • @owari you mean like jews that are able to live and interact with Germany? You make peace with your enemies, not your friends. The cycle has to stop at some point. What other option is there? Will it be quick, no. Will it happen, I hope so.
    – DogBoy37
    Commented Aug 5 at 22:42
5

Presumably it's in part because a number of Arab states have acquiesced to Israel's existence in the meantime. And even [Fatah/PLO leader] Abbas said at one point that rejecting that original plan was a mistake. True though, Hamas doesn't share that opinion.

Improve this answer
0

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .