What would be your ideal solution to the Israel/Palestine issue?

[SPC]

Palestinians should give up the "right of return".  In return, Israel should dismantle most of its settlements in the West Bank, so that Palestine can have a decent, contiguous amount of territory.

This seems to be the primary obstacle on each side.

[The Mikado]

Honestly, while few at the time were particularly fond of it, the pre-1967 status quo when Egypt held Gaza and Jordan the West Bank looks good by comparison now in retrospect.  Of course, there's no possibility of returning to that: Jordan doesn't want the West Bank for demographic reasons and Egypt absolutely positively under no circumstances wants Gaza.

Palestine, as a disjointed two part country on opposite sides of Israel from each other, is going to be a dysfunctional entity no matter how the two state solution works out. 

I'm not sure why the Palestinians should give up their right to return for refugees driven out of their land in 1948 when Israel explicitly allows the immigration of any Jew in the world into its country.

[Tender Branson]

Re-location of Israel and it's people to Wyoming.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Re-location of Israel and it's people to Wyoming.

I'm not that fond of the Zionist experiment, but even Zionists deserve better than Wyoming.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Pass a UN Security Council resolution which mandates that every Israeli school class is to go on a week-long school trip with a Palestinian school class and vice versa once a year.

Failure to obey this resolution would result in the Israel/Palestine area being contained in a quarantine zone with which any contact with the rest of the world is forbidden.

[Mopsus]

Ideal solution? The current Israel and Palestine are united into a single state (known as "The State of Israel" in Hebrew and "The State of Palestine" in Arabic, the nation's two official languages), whose legislative powers are vested in a national unicameral legislature headed by the Prime Minister, and whose executive powers are vested in the President. Legislators are elected from one of the nation's districts (modeled on the districts of Mandatory Palestine), with the number of legislators representing each district determined by that district's population. A Census is to be held every ten years to ensure accurate representation.

The President is appointed by the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister is Jewish, the President must be Muslim, and vice versa. In the event that the Prime Minister belongs to a religion other than one of those two, there is no religion requirement for the President. The powers and responsibilities of the Presidency are comparable to those of the President of the United States.

Equality between the religions would be the first principle enshrined in the new state's Constitution.

I have no idea how practical any of this is.

What about Christian Palestinians, of which there are quite a few of?

Or Palestianians who speak Hebrew, or Israelis who speak Arabic?

What about them? Did I somehow leave any of those groups out in the cold in my proposal?

[traininthedistance]

I'm not sure why the Palestinians should give up their right to return for refugees driven out of their land in 1948 when Israel explicitly allows the immigration of any Jew in the world into its country.

Should Germany insist on a "right of return" for those people expelled from the Recovered Territories east of the Oder-Neisse?  That's the most analogous situation here.

And, no, I don't think the fact of aliyah materially damages that analogy, not when so many of the Jews that did make aliyah did so as refugees themselves expelled from other parts of the Middle East, or fleeing more low-level persecution pressures in the Soviet Union.

[ingemann]

My ideal solution would be a one state solution where people lived in peace or harmony.

More realistic I support either a 2, 2½ or 3 state solution.

the one 2½ state are a federation between Israel and the West Bank, while Gaza end up a independent city state.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The right of return neatly demonstrates the problem with 'ideal solutions': on the one hand it is perfectly reasonable to ask for people who were expelled or fled from their homes to be able to return to them (a textbook impossible promise it may well be - and actually a very unusual one to make to refugees - but the trouble is it was made) but on the other... even if you look at only the practicalities and ignore all other arguments against it (many of which are also, as it happens, perfectly reasonable), it seems entirely unworkable in the wider context of an 'ideal solution'. Neither fact cancels out the other.

[Indy Texas]

Ideal solution? The current Israel and Palestine are united into a single state (known as "The State of Israel" in Hebrew and "The State of Palestine" in Arabic, the nation's two official languages)

But what would you call it in English or any other language? Anyway, Israel already has a name in Arabic (Israil) and Palestine already has a name in Hebrew (Palestina).

That would be like saying the US's name in English is the United States of America and its name in Spanish is Mexico.

[Indy Texas]

Should Germany insist on a "right of return" for those people expelled from the Recovered Territories east of the Oder-Neisse?  That's the most analogous situation here.

Why would any German in their right mind demand the "right" to "return" to Russia or Eastern Europe?

The difference is that the Germans were relocating to a country that was more prosperous and developed than the one they left and were given a lot of help in integrating into that society. The Palestinians were driven into Jordan and Syria, countries with lower development indicators than Israel, and given no assistance beyond sticking them in tents in the desert.

[SPC]

Should Germany insist on a "right of return" for those people expelled from the Recovered Territories east of the Oder-Neisse?  That's the most analogous situation here.

Why would any German in their right mind demand the "right" to "return" to Russia or Eastern Europe?

The difference is that the Germans were relocating to a country that was more prosperous and developed than the one they left and were given a lot of help in integrating into that society. The Palestinians were driven into Jordan and Syria, countries with lower development indicators than Israel, and given no assistance beyond sticking them in tents in the desert.

So it is somehow Israel's fault that the Arab nations were less accommodating to their expelled brethren than Germany was to theirs, so that they could continue to be used as political pawns? (Granted Israel and the USSR both bear responsibility for the initial expulsions)

[Mopsus]

Ideal solution? The current Israel and Palestine are united into a single state (known as "The State of Israel" in Hebrew and "The State of Palestine" in Arabic, the nation's two official languages)

But what would you call it in English or any other language? Anyway, Israel already has a name in Arabic (Israil) and Palestine already has a name in Hebrew (Palestina).

That would be like saying the US's name in English is the United States of America and its name in Spanish is Mexico.

I was attempting to come up with a name that was inoffensive to the different sides, but it appears that I didn't quite think things through.

[Rockefeller GOP]

I don't have all the answers, and I don't even try to pretend I have them.  However, the baseless, idealist thinking many on the left express toward the conflict all in the name of tolerance is laughable.  The fact is, there is no good solution to the conflict, but there are only two realistic (albeit broad) ones, IMO: either cut ties with Israel and kick them out or allow Israel to occupy the territories and support them in doing so.  Groups like Hamas have no desire to compromise and in fact believe it to be morally wrong; Israel isn't that far removed from that viewpoint.  If you're looking to maintain world security and solve this issue, all the while sticking to your moral guns, you're in for a rude awakening.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Dismantle all Israeli settlements beyond the 1967 borders (except maybe Golan and Eastern Jerusalem, which they won't give up). West Bank+Gaza Strip becomes a fully sovereign Palestinian State. Hamas should be banned and cracked down on by a joint Israeli-Palestinian effort.

[Supersonic]

There is no ideal solution.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The difference is that the Germans were relocating to a country that was more prosperous and developed than the one they left

I hate to be a pedant (LIE) but actually they were mostly leaving parts of Germany that had ceased to be parts of any Germany - including many areas that were once very prosperous and very developed indeed (e.g. Breslau, Königsberg...) - and were relocated to the new West Germany. The exception would be the Sudeten Germans, but then the German parts of Bohemia were also very developed and quite prosperous.

Not that this really has any bearing on the subject of this thread.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, this remains a huge problem (and one that would not be solved by the relocation of the refugee slums to the sites of former villages: slums they would remain). Any ideas?

[Simfan34]

Thanks for starting the thread- I've been wondering about this amidst all the bluster, that people rarely seem to have an end goal in mind.

A one-state solution will not work simply because one side (I will hazard it would be the Palestinians) would harass the other until they were removed from the picture one way or another. No one has wanted a "secular and democratic socialist" Palestine except for maybe George Habash, and he's dead. The thinking behind the one-state solution gave us Iraq. I don't think the world needs more Iraqs. Or, as in MOPs proposal, more Lebanons.

I do agree with Mikado that I really just don't see Palestine working in its current form, and the slightly grating thing is that the whole "Palestinian" identity as we currently know it is a fairly arbitrary concept more or less the product of the League-drawn borders. Before you just had a bunch of Levantine farmers, whose elite mainly looked to Pan-Syrian nationalism. Whereas the Jews have been a discrete group for just about forever. So you're lead to feel that one group has a greater intrinsic attachment to the land than the other, which is fairly tenuous, I'll admit, considering the Palestinians have been in Palestine for just about forever themselves.

My preferred solution would be for one group to simply leave the place. Maybe the Palestinians could relocate to Syria or the Sinai (maybe Israel should have kept it for that purpose). Or perhaps the Israelis could all relocate to the US (except for the weird Russian Nazis and their ilk). For the reasons stated above I'm inclined to say it should be the Palestinians.

Both sides seem intent on claiming the whole territory for their own (again, the Palestinians more so than the Israelis) so I'm challenged to see how, even if Israel was to evacuate the settlements, even if they were to give Palestine the territories bounded by the Green Line, etc, how said Palestinian state would somehow drop the revanchism.

It's funny, how I like to tell people I maintain a concerted apathy towards the whole issue but I very clearly have a rather... uncompromising position.

[Frodo]

2 state solution with a permanent UN administered buffer zone. Jerusalem as an open city ie the Danzig Free State under UN peacekeeping and mandate with open and equal access for jews, arabs, christians, businesses and business people, travelers and tourists etc.

The Arab and Israeli states would be with  original 1947/1948 borders in regards to the west bank and Egypt would annex and administer the Gaza Strip as part of their country in full. Tel Aviv and Ramallah would be the capitals of these globally recognized states, and the UN would administer border crossings, a DMZ buffer and so on, while each nation would manage their own affairs.

Internationally recognized "refugees" given official status would be given the one time choice to become Israeli or Palestinian citizens and regardless of their choice they would be given reparations payments (again under international mediation). Refugee camps would close and the people would be required to settle and do something somewhere.

^^^^^^^^^

More or less this, though given Israeli distrust of the United Nations, I would substitute NATO and the Arab League (in partnership) in its place.   

[Indy Texas]

2 state solution with a permanent UN administered buffer zone. Jerusalem as an open city ie the Danzig Free State under UN peacekeeping and mandate with open and equal access for jews, arabs, christians, businesses and business people, travelers and tourists etc.

The Arab and Israeli states would be with  original 1947/1948 borders in regards to the west bank and Egypt would annex and administer the Gaza Strip as part of their country in full. Tel Aviv and Ramallah would be the capitals of these globally recognized states, and the UN would administer border crossings, a DMZ buffer and so on, while each nation would manage their own affairs.

Internationally recognized "refugees" given official status would be given the one time choice to become Israeli or Palestinian citizens and regardless of their choice they would be given reparations payments (again under international mediation). Refugee camps would close and the people would be required to settle and do something somewhere.

^^^^^^^^^

More or less this, though given Israeli distrust of the United Nations, I would substitute NATO and the Arab League (in partnership) in its place.   

You think Israel would rather have Jerusalem patrolled by soldiers from Arab Muslim countries that don't even acknowledge its existence than have some, say, New Zealanders and South Koreans in sky blue helmets? And why would NATO be involved? Jerusalem isn't even in or associated with any of the countries that are in NATO.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

My ideal solution is to create a secular Palestinian state.

[Frodo]

2 state solution with a permanent UN administered buffer zone. Jerusalem as an open city ie the Danzig Free State under UN peacekeeping and mandate with open and equal access for jews, arabs, christians, businesses and business people, travelers and tourists etc.

The Arab and Israeli states would be with  original 1947/1948 borders in regards to the west bank and Egypt would annex and administer the Gaza Strip as part of their country in full. Tel Aviv and Ramallah would be the capitals of these globally recognized states, and the UN would administer border crossings, a DMZ buffer and so on, while each nation would manage their own affairs.

Internationally recognized "refugees" given official status would be given the one time choice to become Israeli or Palestinian citizens and regardless of their choice they would be given reparations payments (again under international mediation). Refugee camps would close and the people would be required to settle and do something somewhere.

^^^^^^^^^

More or less this, though given Israeli distrust of the United Nations, I would substitute NATO and the Arab League (in partnership) in its place.  

You think Israel would rather have Jerusalem patrolled by soldiers from Arab Muslim countries that don't even acknowledge its existence than have some, say, New Zealanders and South Koreans in sky blue helmets? And why would NATO be involved? Jerusalem isn't even in or associated with any of the countries that are in NATO.

I suggested NATO (as an American-led institution) and the Arab League so that both Israel and the Palestinians would each have someone they could trust respectively as opposed to one overarching entity that Israel regards as being wholly in Palestine's pocket.  

And anyway, it isn't going to happen.  Despite the fact there was support within Israel for having NATO troops patrolling the Jordan Valley as part of a peace deal.  

This is an ideal (read: dream) scenario for a reason.  What is more likely to happen, thanks to the expansion of settlements precluding a separate territorially-contiguous Palestinian state, is a one-state solution resulting in some sort of a bi-national Israeli state.  

[The Mikado]

Given the situation, there really isn't an "ideal solution" by any stretch.  I sometimes suspect that we'll come to the darkly ironic Arab-majority Israel someday by process of annexation of the West Bank and higher Palestinian birthrates.

The Balad first place, Likud second place election results in the 2030s would be comic as hell.

[Simfan34]

It's strange, considering how very possible an outcome that is (particularly when you consider what proportion of new births the Haredim a few decades from now would account for) and yet only those on the far right ever seem to be bothered enough by the prospect to bring it up.

I will say this frankly: I do not understand why exactly Israel gave some Arabs citizenship in the first place. The whole idea of a "Jewish state" is pretty exclusionary to begin with so I don't see what compelled Israel give citizenship to people who are at best apathetic towards it and at worse openly hostile. Actually, Israeli feeling and self-identification amongst Arab citizens has actually diminished over time, if I recall correctly.

The unfortunate truth is that, barring a sudden and comprehensive change in the attitude of Palestinians towards Israelis (not to mention the rest of the Arab world) towards an attitude of tolerance sometime in the intervening decades, this would more likely than not result in the cessation, through one means or another, of the presence of the Jewish inhabitants of the former Israel in this United Palestine.

This is why I am skeptical of the viability of any proposal; one state, two state, three state, no state, any of them.

[Indy Texas]

It's strange, considering how very possible an outcome that is (particularly when you consider what proportion of new births the Haredim a few decades from now would account for) and yet only those on the far right ever seem to be bothered enough by the prospect to bring it up.

I will say this frankly: I do not understand why exactly Israel gave some Arabs citizenship in the first place. The whole idea of a "Jewish state" is pretty exclusionary to begin with so I don't see what compelled Israel give citizenship to people who are at best apathetic towards it and at worse openly hostile. Actually, Israeli feeling and self-identification amongst Arab citizens has actually diminished over time, if I recall correctly.

The unfortunate truth is that, barring a sudden and comprehensive change in the attitude of Palestinians towards Israelis (not to mention the rest of the Arab world) towards an attitude of tolerance sometime in the intervening decades, this would more likely than not result in the cessation, through one means or another, of the presence of the Jewish inhabitants of the former Israel in this United Palestine.

This is why I am skeptical of the viability of any proposal; one state, two state, three state, no state, any of them.

Mainstream Zionist policy at the time Israel was established was not wholesale removal of non-Jews. It was just to ensure that they were a small enough segment of the population that there would be a comfortable Jewish majority (a 75% Jewish/25% Arab figure was sometimes tossed around as an example). It would have been impossible to remove every single Arab from inside the Green Line and to the Israelis' credit the idea of doing so was abhorrent to a lot of them. (Especially considering their own recent experiences with population transfers in Europe).

Had they never ventured beyond the Green Line post-1967, I don't think it would be an issue. Israel proper is still ~3/4 Jewish. Their decision to take up residence in the West Bank, and in doing so acquire not just the land but the people on it, destroyed any possibility of maintaining that demographic equilibrium. It's too late to tell the settlers to come home. It's too late to remove the Palestinians - if they wanted to go all genocidal, they should have done so during the Six-Day War when they would have had the best excuse to do so.

They also have demographic problems among the Jewish Israelis themselves. The "original" Israelis tended to be a mostly secular lot from Europe and North America; they were well-educated and politically progressive. They built their state along social democratic and technocratic lines. The decision to admit the Mizrahi and Sephardic Jews from the Arabic-speaking countries and to admit the Russian Jews changed that. They tended to be more conservative and more antagonistic towards Palestinians. And they were generally uneducated and more reliant on social services. And they tend to have higher birthrates.

If the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 40 years ago was between secular Labor-voting Israelis and secular Arabist/Nasserist Palestinians, in 10-20 years it's going to be between theocratic Yisrael Beiteinu Jews and Hamas-voting Islamists, each of whom see a religious duty to remove the other completely from the area.