A balanced Canadian approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

[gerryh]

I thought it would have been obvious from context that options 2 and 3 are intended as extreme opposites of one another, one being blind support for Israel and the other blind opposition to Israel. How else would you have worded that option 2 to make it clear that it was in fact intended to represent blind support for Israel?

I see, so with your support of the "one state solution" with eao then your choice is #3.

 

[Machjo]

I see, so with your support of the "one state solution" with eao then your choice is #3.

I know '4' is a big number, but seeing that the spirit of a One-state solution would in fact be to promote more unity between Israelis and Palestinians, and considering that there would be nothing stopping a state of Israel to continue to exist within a larger federation (just like the UK does not negate the existence of England), so it would not necessarily be option three, depending on the kind of One-state solution being proposed.

I personally though abhor both options 2 and 3. Option 1 I could accept on simple legalistic grounds (i.e. it would merely be enforcing international law as it currently stands, and I don't see how much more neutral you can get than that). On the other hand, a voluntary one-state solution would go beyond simple legalistic considerations towards building a more united and prosperous society. But of course it would seem that a simple legalistic approach as described in option 1 above would be an absolute minimum we ought to expect, with a one-state solution based on goodwill on both sides, which would be an option 4 above, being even better.

So if I'm pessimistic, then I'd lean towards option 1, and if optimistic that they could agree willingly to a one-state solution, then I'd lean to option 4. I don't see how anythig I said suggests that I support either options 2 or 3 above.

 

[gerryh]

so, your support of a one state solution would be expanding the state of Isreal to cover the entire existing plus Gaza and the west bank then. Or do you support the dissolution of Israel?

 

[Machjo]

so, your support of a one state solution would be expanding the state of Isreal to cover the entire existing plus Gaza and the west bank then. Or do you support the dissolution of Israel?

On the legalistic front, I'd say defend Israel's borders as they are currently recognized in international law (i.e. pre-1967). On a more idealistic front, I'd support some kind of one-state solution incorporating Israel, but on condition that it be conformant to all international laws, which would likely mean that both Israelis and Palestinian representatives would have to agree to it.

What good would come out of the dissolution of Israel?

Sorry, I just reread it and I think I understand your question better now:

so, your support of a one state solution would be expanding the state of Isreal to cover the entire existing plus Gaza and the west bank then.

So the equivalent of the US annexing Canada or vice versa? No, at least not without the consent of the people, which I cannot even imagine.

Or do you support the dissolution of Israel?

So the equivalent of the dissolution of Canada? Again at least not without the consent of the people.

Now as for a one-state solution, maybe the equivalent of Canadian provinces coming together at confederation, or the EU, or the formation of the US out of its states, or maybe some kind of future North American Federation? Honestly I could support some kind of decentralized North American federation under the right circumstances. So why not a decentralized Israli-Palestinian federation? Just like England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, each country would still continue to exist, but together would form something greater than the sum of its parts.

And of course any kind of one state solution would have to be of mutual volition. Otherwise, a two state solution respecting pre-1967 boundaries as per international law would be the other option. Less than ideal, but at least legally defensible.

 

[gerryh]

Why not a EU style solution or a Canadian federation style.....hmmmmm.... let me think now....... maybe because Hamas only wants to see Israel destroyed?

 

[earth_as_one]

I support Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories becoming a country where everyone enjoys the same rights and freedoms regardless of race or religion. The concept of being a Jewish state opens a can of worms where rights are determined by the level of Jewishness.
BBC News - Row rages over defining who is a Jew

The only other government I can think of which tried to determine the level of Jewishness was Nazi Germany. We all know how that turned out...

 

[Machjo]

Why not a EU style solution or a Canadian federation style.....hmmmmm.... let me think now....... maybe because Hamas only wants to see Israel destroyed?

Just like Zionists would like to see Palestinians swept into the Mediterranean?

Birds of a feather. Get rid of Hamas, Hizbullah and the Zionists, and maybe we could then get things done. Unfortunately though, it would seem both the Zionists and Hamas enjoy widespread support.

So, which side should Canada take? What I like about both the legalistic and one-state solutions is that neither of them require Canada to take sides between Zionists who want to maintain occupied territories and oppress Palestinians, and Palestinians who like to blow people up on buses. Both of those solutions are merely saying either:

1. Respect each other's boundaries as recognized in international law, or
2. Join together for mutual benefit.

Both of these options give neither Zionists nor Islamists the light of day.

 

[gerryh]

And of course any kind of one state solution would have to be of mutual volition. Otherwise, a two state solution respecting pre-1967 boundaries as per international law would be the other option. Less than ideal, but at least legally defensible.

As far as I am concerned, considering the 6 day war was an outside attack on Israel, Israel should be allowed the land it annexed in it's defense against the aggressors. Which means Israel get's Gaza, the west bank, and the Sinai and the Golan Heights.

 

[captain morgan]

Wouldn't option 1 in the OP essentially do that in a way? After all, if the US stopped funding Israel while Iran continued funding Hizbullah et al., we'd let it happen as long as they are not attacking pre-1967 Israeli soil. Essentially it would be like the US saying that as long as the Palestinians are limiting their attacks to Israeli troops in occupied territory, it's a legitimate battle for their land back. Should such fighting eventually push Israel back to within its pre-1967 limits, then all legitimate reasons to finance Palestinian military activities would no longer be legitimate, and so should Iran continue to finance them, then the US would step up the ani on the grounds that it has played fair so why not Iran. This would put the US in a position ot say that it has indeed played fair with the Palestinians by not interfering in their battle for their homeland, but drawing the line only at attacks on pre-1967 Israeli territory.

The big problem that you have in this issue relates to 2 groups that believe they each have an historical claim to the same lands. The notion that a 3rd party (the UN) arbitrated and granted a "nation" to one resulted in a win-lose situation (depending on what side of the fence you are on). The ongoing aggressions and consequent expansion(s) that have been experienced are a direct result of the perceived inequities and direct conflict.

My point is that I don't think that there is any amount of 3rd party intervention that will solve this issue to the liking of all parties concerned. At some point, presuming that the hostilities continue and both nations live as armed camps, this thing will be settled on the battle field where might-makes-right.

 

[Colpy]

A letter I thought was interesting from the National Post.

Israeli ‘apartheid’​

Re: No Apartheid In Israel, letters to the editor, March 21.
I have much personal experience over the years within the Israeli medical scene. I have eight grandchildren born in Jerusalem, including a grandson who spent three months in neonatal intensive care in an Israeli hospital. There I witnessed Arabs and Jews being served equally in the hospital, with Arab and Jewish doctors working hand in hand. The teams were most impressive, as they were in other hospitals I had occasion to have contact with.
When my daughter checked out of the hospital, leaving her preemie behind, she was handed a huge case to take home, the size of a violin. She accepted it, but I questioned what it was. “A gas mask for a baby,” she told me. I burst into tears. “Welcome to Israel,” she said.
Loretta Tanenbaum, Toronto.

A single state solution in the Middle East would be suicide for the Jews.

Where are the hundreds of thousands of Jews that lived in Muslim nations only 100 years ago?

Thrown out, fled to Israel........and NOT by choice.

The European Holocaust should show anyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size that one thousand years of hatred does not just fade away in a generation...........instead, it reaches an inevitable, and bloody climax.

And the Europeans did not have the Koran and the Hadith to urge them on in Jew slaughter.........

 

[lone wolf]

Block all messages in and out and cut off ALL aid to BOTH sides. May the winner come out tired of fighting....

 

[petros]

Where are the hundreds of thousands of Jews that lived in Muslim nations only 100 years ago?

Thrown out, fled to Israel........and NOT by choice.

Ummmm how do you get thrown out to a country 48 years before it existed?

 

[ironsides]

If that means you believe the US should stop giving Israel about 5 billion a year in arms and economic support then I agree. Otherwise this is a war between the US/Israel against the Palestinian people.

Lets not forget that the other Arab nations and the world must stop the arms and economic support for Palestine. Just let them duke it out with what they have as of today. Then I agree. Winner take all.

 

[Machjo]

A letter I thought was interesting from the National Post.



A single state solution in the Middle East would be suicide for the Jews.

Where are the hundreds of thousands of Jews that lived in Muslim nations only 100 years ago?

Thrown out, fled to Israel........and NOT by choice.

The European Holocaust should show anyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size that one thousand years of hatred does not just fade away in a generation...........instead, it reaches an inevitable, and bloody climax.

And the Europeans did not have the Koran and the Hadith to urge them on in Jew slaughter.........

Correction, there continue to be many Jews in Iran today, and they are generally well treated. Maybe not treated as equals to Muslims, granted, and certainly not fair, but that's no different from Israeli immigration, marriage and conversion laws now is it?

 

[petros]

Correction, there continue to be many Jews in Iran today, and they are generally well treated. Maybe not treated as equals to Muslims, granted, and certainly not fair, but that's no different from Israeli immigration, marriage and conversion laws now is it?

There are still some in Yemen who missed the magic carpet ride (pssssst! carpet is wall to wall it's flying AREA RUG).

 

[darkbeaver]

Correction, there continue to be many Jews in Iran today, and they are generally well treated. Maybe not treated as equals to Muslims, granted, and certainly not fair, but that's no different from Israeli immigration, marriage and conversion laws now is it?

You are not familiar with the Iranian Jews are you? They have steadfastly refused to leave thier country despite the many insulting bribes offered by Israelis.

A balanced Canadian approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.


You may not be familiar with the concept of balance either. Any balanced approach would entail balance of arms, either strip the Israelis or arm the Palestinians equally.

 

[Colpy]

Correction, there continue to be many Jews in Iran today, and they are generally well treated. Maybe not treated as equals to Muslims, granted, and certainly not fair, but that's no different from Israeli immigration, marriage and conversion laws now is it?

Jews in Iran are not permitted to leave. In other words, like the old Soviet Union, if a Jew leaves Iran for some legitimate purpose, his family may not travel with him.

Why do you suppose that is?????

I have a theory.

The nutcases that make up the ruling elite of that looney bin all believe the Final Days are at hand............which include the mass slaughter of all the Jews before Judgement Day.......

And they need some Jews around, or they will miss out on all the fun.

Spare me the tripe about how nice Iran is to Jews.

There is a healthy Jewish community in Turkey.

 

[petros]

Healthy as a Kurd?

 

[darkbeaver]

Jews in Iran are not permitted to leave. In other words, like the old Soviet Union, if a Jew leaves Iran for some legitimate purpose, his family may not travel with him.

Why do you suppose that is?????

I have a theory.

The nutcases that make up the ruling elite of that looney bin all believe the Final Days are at hand............which include the mass slaughter of all the Jews before Judgement Day.......

And they need some Jews around, or they will miss out on all the fun.

Spare me the tripe about how nice Iran is to Jews.

There is a healthy Jewish community in Turkey.

Prove it?

 

[Colpy]

Healthy as a Kurd?

Healthier, actually.....at least so far.

Prove it?

A theory, DB, a hypotheses............an idea, a possibilty......

I don't want to see it proven, for obvious reasons.