Talk Elections

Could the U.S. conduct a two state resolution for Israel and Palestine?

No. The best time-frame was during the Bush Administration, with Abbas and pre-Netanyahu.

But honestly, in the 1990's people saw this as the last real conflict in the world, the one obstacle to world peace. Now the world, and that region in particular, is a lot more screwed up. And it makes this conflict look minor in comparison.

And really, while we should help, but it's not the responsibility of the United States in particular.

Ideally, we'd get to the point where negotiations could be conducted again and a solution would be hashed out.

However, that time isn't now. And the idea of the US imposing a solution via the UN is probably the clearest way to turn a low boil conflict very, very hot in a hurry.

I am afraid, increasingly, it is too late. And, in any case, it is not the US that can do it. At least, not through active diplomatic action.

Imposition isn't the way now I agree.  As a conservative I don't like using the phrase "sit down and talk" but if it saves lives in the long run some sort of negotiations are helpful.  These countries have long histories and with long histories come long memories.  It goes back to Isaac and Ishmael unfortunately.

What? No, it doesn't.

This thread is a Bad Idea guys...

Pretty much any thread started by Derek will be a bad idea.

Two states will not be a solution.

I have arrived. Waiting for the haters to enter the arena.

No.

I have entered. So?

Only because it is boring. Nobody cares anymore.

we need like a moderator or something #israelipallydebate2016

I do not speak Twittish.

Just wait until a new eruption of violence is back on the TV screen. Meanwhile Netenyahu and Abbas turn up the rhetoric at the UN and the rest of the world rinses itself selling weapons on the cheap (or in the US's case, actually giving them millions to buy weapons) then having to rebuild Gaza/West Bank with humanitarian aid.

We don't care about violence if it's just a bunch of assholes stabbing civilians.Well they are rebuilding the tunnels with that UN humanitarian aid (and using children to build them) so you've got that to be proud of.

It's the only way. Period. War without victory will continue until it happens.

Ain't gonna be soon though.

Palestinians are irrational and Israelis are increasingly becoming irrational as well. Guess that's the ultimate outcome when you believe the magic fairy upstairs gave the land to you only, no one else.

I still think it will go down like this: The next Prime Minister or the Prime Minister after next will be some right-wing expansionist who will annex the West Bank wholesale. Palestinians there will either be immediately made citizens and given the right to vote, or else there will be a boycott from the EU that causes the next government to give them citizenship and voting rights. In the first election after that, the Arab parties and the left team up, Israel becomes a secular nation, changes their flag and national anthem and maybe even their name. The border with Gaza will also be open, shortly after that, the Arab led government will vote to simply absorb Gaza. More than 50% of Israeli Jews will immigrate to the United States.

There is a basic flaw in this timeline. Good Israeli Zionist left would be as opposed to this, as the right. The reason these people are for the two-state solution is precisely that they do not want the one state (and, unlike the right, are not willing to govern a disenfranchised minority as unwilling subjects). Jewish Israel is as imperative for them, as it is for the right. The few exceptions are already in the Hadash. Even among Meretz voters/activists it would be very much a minority stance to support decommunalization of the state.

So, if the WBankers were to be given citizenship, this would be followed by a lengthy period of communal Jewish governments, with Grand Zionist coalitions being a temporary norm and Arabs forming the main opposition. In a way, Israeli politics would become similar to that in the Baltic states: coalition governments, whose composition would never change with "unacceptable" opposition, which, in turn, would uncontestedly dominate mayoralties in the minority areas. This may, eventually, break down, but it would take, at least, something like 40 years. A couple of generations would have to pass, bible-style.

In fact, I strongly suspect this is what will happen, eventually (unless a major Israeli military defeat interferes). It will be a one-state solution. West Bank will be annexed (Gaza will either become independent or Egyptian), the local population will be partially (though not very successfully) pushed out (possibly, in a few cases, through border adjustments with Jordan), the rest will be given citizenship and a communal semi-democracy will be established nationwide, with elections regular, but highly unexciting. The grand compact of the Jewish parties will be permanently in power, the opposition coalition would be heavily Arab-dominated. This situation will last for a long, long time, long enough so that I will not be around to see what happens later.

With regards to the Israeli left being too pro-2 state, I've had this discussion before on here. I just don't believe it. Certainly many young activists on the left are open to a single, non-Jewish state. Even among the establishment politicians of the centre-left, I think many have secretly made peace with the idea. Publicly they are very strong for 2 states though because they are worried about being painted as traitors or unpatriotic. It's simply overcompensation. The same reason they call their party "Zionist Union". It reminds me of how American Democrats backed the Iraq War and opposed gay marriage to prove they weren't dangerous radicals but as soon as the political winds become more favorable, they revealed their real positions.

With regards to Gaza, I'm even more sure you are wrong there. Egypt will not take it. It might become independent for an interim period but as soon as tensions with Israel ease (which is likely if West Bank Arabs are given citizenship), immigration and cross border trade will dramatically increase. Israel and Gaza will become economically entwined in such a way that unification will become inevitable (especially if the Israeli Arabs continually campaign for it).

I.e., at least 40+ years after the WB annexation.

A generation of Jewish Israelis would have to die out first.

As an Israeli center-leftist who knows many like me, I have to disagree. The left will never support a unified state with two official nationalities (Jewish and Palestinian) because it would mean the complete destruction of the zionist dream. I firmly believe that the only way for zionism and Israel to survive is a two-state solution, and I want to believe that Israelis and Palestinians will slowly realize it too. The survival of Israel as a Democratic, Jewish state is vital for all Jews worldwide.

A single unified state wouldn't have two official nationalities. Very few states have "official nationalities" at all. They are just the states of the people who live there.

I would assume any one state solution would be based on a Northern Ireland style consociatioanlism, with recognition of both (and probably Christan, Druze and Bedouin too). Especially seeing as Palestinians and Israelis would be roughly equal in number.

I have to agree with you on much of this - except, of course, for the last sentence. As a Jew, I believe we all would have been better off if Israel/Palestine were simply a democratic state without any oficial Jewishness beyond the one imposed by its population composition.

But, otherwise, of course, I see exactly where you are coming from. What many people here forget is that most of Israeli left is Zionist left. And Zionism has a meaning. Now, not being a Zionist I can personally agree that - for me - a single non-sectarian state would be preferable. But I also do know that no Zionist would accept that. Our non-Jewish friends here simply do not have the sense where all of this is originating and how strong it is.

It seems natural to you (or to me) - but it is earthshattering to pretty much all Zionist Israelis, left or Right. It is like saying that a single unified religion would not have two gods - it would simply have no gods. Zionism is stuck in the late 19th century, with all its romantic nationalist shibboleths.

Well, you're probably right about what would be best, but it's probably a utopian vision. The bitterness between Israelis and Palestinians is imply too big unfourtunately, so we need a "divorce". And idk if it's an old-fashioned idea of nationalism, but I do still believe that the Jews need a state where they're the main nationality. I'm an atheist, and certainly don't believe all this talk I often hear of the Jews being special in any way, but as a people that managed to stay fairly unified despite being spread all over the world (funnily enough, now that we have a state this unification is threatened), I think that they have to right to a sovereign state that will keep their interests. At least until the idea of nationalism stops being so prominent all over the world- which will be a very happy day, imo.

I know where you are coming from. The only thing I really want here is that you guys stop talking on behalf of the Jews around the world. I do not need your state any more than I need Papua New Guinea. As for the rest, it is your battle to fight.

No deal. As a Jew, I need the existence of Israel more than I need the existence of the country of which I hold a passport (though I obviously love and value the existence of both).

You are welcome to go to Israel and become the citizen of the anti-Jewish state yourself. Just do not mix me into this.

Again, no deal, I'm afraid...

Atlas Israel-Palestine thread are so annoying. Maybe just create a megathread for this gobsh**te. I though this board is terrible only in the run up for a presidential election...

Internet discussions on muh opinionzzz of or feelzzz about the Arab-Israeli conflict are in general annoying -- always and everywhere. I prefer analyzing Israeli political developments instead.

And I am not asking for a deal from you. As you know full well, I do not even consider you Jewish.

who care -- halacha does...

are you gonna throw a fit at The Atlas again? lmao

I am not the one asking for a deal :)

:)

I was not talking to you. In fact, let me quote from you, just a bit up this same thread:


I think, I can reasonably conclude from this that you are not an Israeli citizen. Hence, in my book you have no more to do with Israel than with Papua New Guinea. And I was talking to an Israeli here.

Fat Sweaty Mexican off his meds again? SAD!
Anyway threads on this topic need to not happen.

I am fat, indeed, but the weather here is pretty cool in every sense of the word, so no sweat. And, praise Tlaloc, no meds :)

What makes you so annoyed here? This one has been, positively, tame, compared to what we have had in the past :)

Just one illustration for why many of us, as diaspora Jews, would prefer not to be associated in any way with the state of Israel. As many of you have, probably, heard, recently there has been some bruhaha at the UNESCO over, whatever. Israel took umbrage and complained left right and center. So, our sorry excuse for a foreign secretary (who chose not to resign after the Trump visit!) now fired Mexican ambassador for "not informing" her about the issue beforehand (as if she, actually, cared). So, anyway, a good Jewish guy has now been fired for doing what he thought was in the interest of his country because Israel complained. As a Mexican Jew I cannot say I am happy :(

I'm glad that ag is secure enough to not see any need for Israel. I wish my great-uncles in Reichskommissariat Ostland had been so secure.

My grandfather lost at least 13 uncles and aunts in Uman. The family of my great grandmother was wiped out in Alytus. I do not have to imagine "somewhere in Ostland" - many of those places are real to me.

A cousin of my grandma survived the Riga ghetto. He collected stamps after the war:  in his telling, a stamp was simply a necessary precaution, since gold would be confiscated at the time of the arrest, but a valuable stamp could survive undetected - yet, there would always be somebody who would know its worth and be willing to exchange it for food. He sold his collection when Latvia joined the EU in 2004 - he felt safe. And he was right. What makes us safe are the institutions that make it difficult (alas, I can no longer say impossible) for the past to be repeated. Israel undermines those institutions - it is making us less safe, not more. If liberal institutions collapse, we will only have postage stamps to protect us.

I think I understand what you're getting at here, and all I'll say is that the logic strikes me as baroque but also bizarrely complacent at the same time.

Not complacent. Despairing. When it happens, there will be nowhere to run.

And why run?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Tucholsky

I don't mean this as some sort of gotcha, but that is partially what Israel--Israel as such, Israel as a state concept, not the current situation in Israel, with the Likudniks--is there for in the first place.

It will never work.

And, BTW, Likudniks are not an aberration. They are what Israel is about. What has happened was pretty much inevitable from the beginning.

I'm not sure I disagree, but that's no reason not to try.

It cannot work. I am not in the business of designing perpetuum mobile.

Likudniks are not an aberration. They are what Israel is about. What has happened was pretty much inevitable from the beginning.

The specific toxic combination of hawkish, expansionist nationalism and socioeconomic policies that are self-admittedly translations/importations of Republican policies was not inevitable from the beginning, and the current political cleavages in Israel are probably more due to Ashkenazi Labor Zionist bigotry against and mistreatment of the Mizrahim than anything else--which I would certainly classify as an unforced error, morally speaking.

If what you mean is that some form of aggressive nationalism in general was involved from the beginning, then yes, that's true, and is obviously a much more significant moral-conceptual flaw, but surrounding countries certainly aren't guiltless in the way they responded to the Israeli project either. There is nothing inherent to the idea 'a Jewish state in the southern Levant' that, as of the beginning of the Zionist movement, should have necessitated decades-long internecine conflicts and occupations.

If you want to fight, volunteer for NGOs working with refugees.

And, alas, I have never tried an anti-depressant. I do not even drink much anymore - a beer a month or so these days. Some of the evangelicals on this forum should pronounce me a saint, really.

The solution to prejudice is to eliminate prejudice, not to indulge it by engaging in ethno-separatism.

Yes, just like in order to jump higher you should get rid of gravity.

The State of Israel is the number one institution that keeps us safe everywhere in the world.

It is really quite striking how colonized ag's line of reasoning is. Some would refer to such a state of mind as ghettoized, but I disagree: our ancestors in the ghetto had Jewish pride and are often mischaracterized. They held on to their identity. By contrast, in ag's ideal world, Jews would simply assimilate and cease to exist, and in the absence of that utopia we should remain at the mercy of others (MUH EU!). No independence. No self-respect. No strength. No pride. Really sad.

I definitely think that what ag is advocating is pretty abject, but I don't see the evidence for him wanting Jews to assimilate out of existence.

I have no particular preference on this last point. I have no desire to assimilate personally - in the sense that I am not going to deliberately do anything to become less Jewish or to conceal my identity. I wish my kids "a gute nakht", would sell my soul for a good gefilte fish, have a complete works of Sholom Aleykhem on my bookshelf (in Russian) and tell stories about ancestors in the shtetl (fortunately, I know quite a few). But, then, I also speak Russian at home and, for the most part, English elsewhere, eat buckweat and hamburgers, hate corn tortillas and otherwise refuse to assimilate into the Mexican society, either as a Russian or as an Anglo. That is me, and just me and has no implications even for the rest of my family. I would have no objections to my daughters marrying Chinese guys, converting to Hinduism and moving to Kenya.

To the extent that Jews survived as a distinct group for milenia they did so as the archetypal unassimilable migrant minority locked into separatist ultra-religious communities. While I have no desire to belong to such a community, I would respect the right of its members to voluntarily maintain such a lifestyle. I definitely oppose any effort on the part of the larger society to supress such communities: whatever their religion. But my opposition would not be based on any belief in intrinsic value of such communities, but on my belief in individual freedom to live the way one likes.

So, while I definitely appreciate Jewish culture (especially its gastronomic aspect of the Ashkenazic variety) and enjoy my own Jewishness, I do not really assign it any unique value among other such cultures. I mean, it is always a bit sad when interesting phenomena disappear. Karaites or Parsis, among many others, as of today are, obviously, much more in danger of disappearing, and I pretty much feel the same way about them. I definitely would support efforts to preserve their cultures: as long as these are voluntary and do not hurt anybody else.

And, of course, I am Ashkenazic, rather than Jewish. Pan-Judaism is far too abstract for me. I have no family stories about the days of King Salomon, or even those of Bar Kochbah: both are as alien to me as ramseses and alexanders.  I do feel sad about the death of the Yiddishkayt (I would leave it to the offspring of Saloniki to cry for the Ladino world). If anything, that sentiment does nothing to endear Israel to me. However, what is done, is done. Secular Yiddish world has been murdered by Hitler and its corpse has been disowned and repudiated by the Zionists.  My great grandfather's library has been thrown out before I was born. During my lifetime they will still be doing decent chopped herring - I will have enough to eat in joyful mourning. That is sufficient.

It is not the matter of prejudice (though, of course, one should, at least, avoid practicing it - subjects to norman limitations of human spirit). It is the matter of institutions that prevent murder. That is about all we can hope for.

A baseless statement I feel free to disagree with.

1. Ghetto is what preserved Jewishness over the milenia. If not for it there would have been no Jews today. It was what our ancestors were, it was their choice.  While I myself have no desire to return to one, repudiating the ghetto, in my book, is betrayal.

2. Our ancestors had pride. You, however, despise them. I respect them for what they were.

3. One thing they did not do is opress others. I do not think there can be a better reason to be proud of being anyone's offspring. That is, in fact, the highest nobility there can be.

4. I do not want any mercy. Least of all, I would like to remain at your mercy - I would not believe in it for a second. Nor do I believe in the mercy of the State of Israel.

5. It is not the mercy of the EU that I believe in. It is its nature.

6. And if I am wrong on that last count there will be nowhere to run in any case.

It was not their choice. But I agree with the rest of what you say here, as you could have understood from my post. I also largely agree with your paragraph on unassimilable minorities having the right to be who they are, to live how they want to.

It seems you have strong feelzzz on this, but you never care to elaborate on this and that's obviously because you simply cannot. It is not me but you who does not respect our ancestors.

hurrrr durrrrrr palestinians r the new jews me so edgy

You will never remain at my mercy, and that is fortunate, because I would probably not be good enough of a person to grant it to you even if I'd hope otherwise. But all is in the hands of G-d, who is infinitely better than I am. The State, by the way, is not merciful either, as any former Gush Katif resident can tell you. Yet G-d is.

The more interesting question, however, is why you came up with the term mercy. I haven't mentioned it. Strong Jews need no mercy from anyone but G-d. It shows something about your mentality. That's rather tragic.

Liberal institutionalism is nothing more than a tool for the strong to remain strong. The weak seldom profit from it, and if they do, it is on an indirect basis. If you believe in the nature of the EU it's because you have become part of the strong. On the basis of your own definition, would you still be a Jew in that case?


There will be, somewhere to the south of Lebanon -- because of better Jews than you.

Otherwise I disagree with your unsustainable cultural libertarianism but not to the point where I care much for it -- yours is the opinion of the majority of non-observant, non-Israeli Jews in this day and age. The consequence of it, however, would definitely be that we are to assimilate out of existence. Without Torah, Jews stop being Jews in a few generations. They literally stop knowing they're Jewish. It is not something I would want for my children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc. But the consequence of Jews like you making your lifestyle choices and Jews like me making mine is that the Jews with the strongest identities will remain and the ones with the weakest identities will assimilate, and I won't lose sleep over that.

followed by


So, I wonder. Do you read your own posts?

Israelis have develped into something I do not recognize as remotely Jewish, anyway. The cult of the soldier alone is something that is highly distasteful. And, of course, whoever thinks falafel and humus are their ethnic food are, by defnition, Arabs in my book, whatever their religion may be. They are not my tribe, and I am not theirs.

My tribe is nearly dead, anyway. Yiddishkayt is gone. All that is left is gefilte fish, and even that is becoming increasingly stale.

Strength is entirely orthogonal to anything I care about. It is a Trumpista shibboleth, that I have no meaning or need for.

And no, EU is not about strength or the strong. It is about a conscious restriction on strength. Countries (I do not like the word "Nations") denying their own sovereignty, restricting their freedom, to avoid harming those around them. In the end, EU is about humility, not strength. The greatest European statesman today is Angela Merkel, not the lepens and farages.

I do not expect you to be. You would need to have a sense of shame for that - something, which, in all probability, you are constituionally incapable of feeling.

Zionism has always been built on despising the ghetto. Zionists hated the backwardness, the humbleness, the zhargon - everything that has made the Jews the Jews. Zionism is religion of proud children, based on despising their parents.

So, if ghetto was not a choice, and, given that you agree with the rest, are you going to thank those who forced the Jews into ghettos for preserving Jewishness? Please do, I am listening.

Hmm, it appears I read too fast. Hope you feel good about yourself right now!

Whoever thinks Judaism is about food is silly. I, for one, have never come to like the taste of hummus. Then again, as a vegetarian, I say no to gefilte fish too :)

On a more serious note, the Old Jew vs. New Jew thing has always been utterly silly (even if it has empowered us in critical times, when it was arguably necessary). Jews are both Yehuda HaMaccabi and the Torah scholar in the ghetto. Anyone who persuades themselves into believing either the thinking Jew or the fighting Jew isn't really Jewish is wrong and historically illiterate.

Trump isn't about strength, he's all about exploiting people's weaknesses and enabling them to be the worst versions of themselves, and, at the risk of sounding like some liberal Reformnik, that is literally the opposite of Judaism in which people ought to strive to be the best versions of themselves. As for the EU, I'm a "believer" in rational choice theory, and European politicians have consistently gone through with the European integration process simply because it has greatly benefited them and people like them. It has produced the political cleavage that is becoming ever more salient. The EU has brought about some good developments, mainly regarding free trade and the common market, but it has had quite some downsides too, and in any case one thing it most certainly did not do: change Europeans. As a Jew in Europe I do not have any illusions regarding Jews' (non-existent) "whiteness", and recent developments in, for instance, Sweden have only strengthened that impression.  

There is no shame in defending one's people and one's land.

Zionism didn't start in Europe -- it started in Egypt and has always lived on in the soul of every Jew. You are talking about early modern Zionism, not about Zionism. I don't have much in common with any particular brand of early modern Zionism. All were wrong on many issues and especially Labour Zionism committed certain terrible crimes. They were necessary in the grand scheme of things but that's about it. Zionism is not about despising the Jewish past, and those Zionists who did were mistaken.

Thank our oppressors? I'd be crazy to do that. They did not keep us together. G-d did, and it is Him I thank for keeping us together through these times and for making us thrive in our own homeland right now.

"Chaim, you hear, they are teaching us commerce!"

You are going to teach me rational choice? I teach (and develop) it for living :)

I never said that Europeans do not do this because of their personal interest. But they understand, that their personal interest requires agreement and limitations. Their notion of self-interest is based on the understanding that it is very hard to prevent those sorts of conflagrations that nearly destroyed Europe in the first half of the 20th century. They learnt the lessons, which Zionists, alas, rejected.

Which god? I mean, I once had a paper where we proved existence of god, but had real trouble with uniqueness. In fact, by construction, we got infinitely many of those - I guess, Hindus are right :) Very much rational choice, BTW :)

That is true sacrilege. I do not know about God or gods, but gefilte fish is real. You cannot be a Jew and a vegetarian at the same time.

Our disagreement is not historical, but definitional. We have differences on what the word "Jew" means :)

Jewishness, like any other identity, is a matter of self-identification.  I choose my definition :)

You want a list of Jews who would object?

If you claim to believe in rational choice, please be careful with logical quantifiers :)

You are talking about some European politicians. I am talking about ordinary Europeans when I say the situation for Jews hasn't changed as much as one would hope.
 
As for:
and
This is obviously another difference between us: I am an essentialist. I think what Judaism is (as opposed to what Judaism is for me) is not a matter of self-identification, just like I think what Zionism is (as opposed to what Zionism is for me) is not a matter of self-identification. Obviously some Jews have different, non-essentialist understandings of these concepts, but who cares?

Anyway, you're back to cherry picking I see. That's a game I'm not willing to play with you.

Do you believe Palestinian identity is - as per your interpretation of Zionism - essentialist, or a made up community, DavidB?

I did not know there were any cherries to pick here, frankly.

We know each other's lines. You consider me a horrid sinner, I consider you an apostate (or the other way around, or, likely, both ways). What is there to discuss?

It's not relevant whether Palestinian identity is "essentialist" or made up. I'd say it's "made up", like almost all national identities, but it really does not matter: just as the Dutch should be able to live in the Netherlands regardless of whether Dutch national identity is "made up", so should Palestinians be able to live in Israel. Zionism isn't a zero-sum game, as, by the way, many early modern Zionists actually understood, and Jews' eternal bond with the Land of Israel can exist in combination with a large non-Jewish presence in the Land. Peaceful coexistence is possible.

As long as the non-Jews accept their permanent second-class status, that is.  Yet if people can willingly accept such a status for themselves and their posterity, that negates the primary raison d'etre for the State of Israel.

I realize you've deluded yourself into thinking that the State of Israel acts a safeguard for the continued existence of the Jewish people, but history doesn't jive with that. Quite the contrary, as what has safeguarded the existence of Judaism is the very diaspora that you seek to undo, combined with the devotion of the Jews to their God and culture while within that diaspora, a devotion first shown during the Babylonian Exile. The diaspora ensured that even as Jews were persecuted in one place, they could survive and even thrive in another. The State of Israel is stronger than its neighbors today, but that will not always be the case. No state remains permanently the top dog, yet the Israeli people have managed to outlast the Pharoahs, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, and the Caesars. That is a major accomplishment that few other peoples can claim, and I think setting it aside for the temporary illusion of security by the force of arms is a major mistake.

Noted antisemitic Christian Ernest going off on a tangent on why he likes his Jews dependent, oppressed, and in diaspora. Top kek. Love the goysplaining!

Seems to me like he is praising the diaspora you belong to (far more than any state of Israel that you occasionally visit). I wouldn't go so hard on him. I think Ernest needs to realise though that post-war Europe is not exactly home for Jews and their diaspora who were ratted out by their neighbours in a time of structural antisemitism. The absurd idea that they'd walk back into their old homes after their stay in the concentration camps is partly why European powers ensured the state of Israel's existence. The diaspora that currently resides in our countries though should feel safe by now.

May I ask what your interpretation of a Jewish state is, in order to answer Ernests misgivings? Do you support a secular one-state solution state or a more confederal 2 state solution that allows such a Jewish state?

You may not know, but Ernest has quite the posting record on Jewish and Israeli issues, e.g. by calling the creation of Israel a mistake, so I am not at all inclined to give him the benefit on this subject, like, ever. I do not discuss such issues with him anymore.

I do not think you know how often I, someone from the internet you don't know, go to Israel, but my visits are not merely "occassional". Regardless, it is exactly because I do not live in Israel that I understand the value of the existence of a Jewish state, and I know my future lies there. The notion that my people should do without a state in our own land is not only insulting, it is colonialist: it assumes Europeans (should) have the authority to tell Jews where and where not to live. I do not want to commit the Justin Trudeau fallacy, but fortunately those days are over.

I did not really intend to expound on my views on "the solution" once again, since I am rather tired of discussing this subject in general, but as mentioned elsewhere on this forum I support a consociational one-state solution, with a state governed on a non-territorial, communal basis, and with autonomy for both national communities on nearly all issues.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/likud-politician-calls-to-strip-btselem-heads-citizenship/ (http://www.timesofisrael.com/likud-politician-calls-to-strip-btselem-heads-citizenship/)

Israeli politics are going in a very McCarthyist direction. Do they think the status quo can honestly last? Scary stuff. Israel definitely becoming more irrational (not saying Palestinians are angels, you can be against both which some people seem to forget).

Rogier, the diaspora has been in various places over the centuries.  There's nothing special about Europe or any other location. Indeed, over the centuries, pretty much every area in Europe has at various times been hospitable or hostile or even downright homicidal to the Jews. Given what happened in World War II, it was entirely reasonable and understandable why many Jewish survivors of the Nazis and their confederates were reluctant to remain. However, it has been the broad dispersal of the diaspora that ensured the survival of Jews as a nation even when some areas were not survivable for Jews as individuals.

---

David, I don't deny the right of Jews or any other nation to have a state of their own. Nor do I think Europeans or any other people have a right to tell the Jews where they can live. However, neither do I think the Jews have a right to tell the Palestinians where they can live.  The Zionist call for establishing a State of Israel was based in part upon the belief that Jews had an intrinsic right to return to the land that the Jewish nation once called home, no matter what the current inhabitants of that area might think. However, if such a right of return exists, then it surely exists just as much for the Palestinians as it does the Jews, yet the State of Israel could not possibly remain a Jewish majority state within its current claimed borders if a Palestinian right of return were allowed for.

Israel is a land of many paradoxes, paradoxes that someday will be resolved tho how that will happen is not something anyone can predict with certainty. Hopefully peacefully, but I'm cynical about the possibility. I certainly don't see peace being established in my lifetime. Maybe by the end of this century, but it will take a considerable change in both Israeli and Palestinian sentiment for that to happen, and it will be up to them both to make it, not any outsiders such as myself. Your stated desired outcome is potentially one way to resolve the situation, but I just don't see it happening because I don't see having the Jewish and Arabic communities being coequal in most, but not all, areas of governance of a single state as being a stable resolution.

What is inevitable that at some future date there will be a resurgence in Arabic power. (Israel should be thankful that the oil wealth of the Arab states has to date been largely squandered. Buying weapons without having the ability to build or maintain them on their own is largely a waste of money. Unlike the Israelis, the Saudis are dependent upon the continued good will of the US to keep their military operational.) When that resurgence happens and Israel is no longer the dominant military power in the region, then unless Israel has changed its ways by then it is unlikely to survive. (And if it changes its ways to those of the ultranationalists, then it certainly won't survive wen that happens.)

Last but not least, my views on Jews and on the State of Israel are not based upon my Christian beliefs.  I don't think the Jews are any more guilty than the rest of sinful humanity for what happened to Jesus, and I don't think that either the establishment, nor my predicted disestablishment, of the State of Israel, has anything to do with the return of Christ. (Tho I do think reconstruction of the Temple would make inevitable the destruction of both said Temple and the State of Israel, but not because of any apocalyptic literature.)

---

Comrade Funk, it's not that they think the status quo can last, it's that they think the status quo is the best they can hope for right now. In the short term, they are right about that, and it's true of politicians everywhere that they think in the short term.  Rarely do they consider anything beyond the next election, and usually that happens only if they feel secure they'll win in.  The fractious nature of Israeli politics these days means that they can't possibly feel secure.  Even if their political viewpoint is likely to win continued mandates, they can't count on personally winning a continued mandate.  Besides, even if the Israelis had statesmen in charge rather than politicians, there are currently no equivalent Palestinian statement to be in charge of the other side. That's why it'll be at least a generation before peace can even be a possibility again.