Two-State Solution??

Originally posted by sh76
What's wrong, per se, with the creation of the state of Israel? Jews have been living in that area forever, even if there was an additional influx from Europe after the war. What's wrong with giving them some self-autonomy? As the borders were drawn of Israel initially, they WERE the majority. I don't understand what you mean by disregarding the will of the majority. The majority of what?

Of the people of Palestine circa 1948. They didn't want two states which is why they were never made part of the decision making process by election, plebiscite, whatever.

Do you know how many Jews were living in Palestine in the late 1800's?

Originally posted by sh76
I agree with that, in principle. Obviously some details have to be worked out, You can't evacuate 100% of the WB, including densely populated Jerusalem suburbs; and some security measures have to be worked out. Things like passages between the WB and Gaza and divying up the right to Jordan River water have to be worked out as well.

It's a long negotiation process; but I think the 2 basic points you call for are things most Israelis can live with.

Jews wouldn't have to "evacuate" the Jerusalem suburbs; they'd just have to be willing to live under Palestinian rule as many Palestinians are living in Israel under Jewish rule.

Obviously something would have to be done about Jerusalem itself.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
I pose this question mainly to Zionists and their supporters. If Israel's creation was "essential", what would have been the ethical way to do it?

I'm not sure what you mean by essential. I don't think it was "essential" in the strict sense of the World. But I don't see why it shouldn't exist either. Why aren't the Jews who live in the area, for whom those lands are the center of their historical religion, entitled to self autonomy? That's the exact arguments the Palestinians make now- that they're entitled to self- autonomy. I don't understand why everyone has to go so crazy about the Jews being given a lousy 7,000 square miles; a land the size of New Jersey.

Originally posted by sh76
I'm not sure what you mean by essential. I don't think it was "essential" in the strict sense of the World. But I don't see why it shouldn't exist either. Why aren't the Jews who live in the area, for whom those lands are the center of their historical religion, entitled to self autonomy? That's the exact arguments the Palestinians make now- that they're entitl about the Jews being given a lousy 7,000 square miles; a land the size of New Jersey.

How would it have worked for the people of New Jersey if the Zionists had been given New Jersey?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Of the people of Palestine circa 1948. They didn't want two states which is why they were never made part of the decision making process by election, plebiscite, whatever.

Do you know how many Jews were living in Palestine in the late 1800's?

Palestine wasn't a country. It was a British creation. Looking at who was a "majority" in the whole of what the British called "Palestine" is arbitrary.

Splitting Palestine between the Jews and Arabs based on where each lived was the most logical thing to do.

Originally posted by FMF
How would it have worked for the people of New Jersey if the Zionists had been given New Jersey?

There are a heck of a lot of people in New Jersey who are zionists as it is.

🙂

I'm sure Jim McGreevy wouldn't have minded plenty of Israeli fellows running around his state. 😀

Originally posted by sh76
Splitting Palestine between the Jews and Arabs based on where each lived was the most logical thing to do.

But Arabs were evicted from where they lived.

Originally posted by sh76
There are a heck of a lot of people in New Jersey who are zionists as it is.

🙂

Perhaps answer the question? Are the people of New Jersey different from Palestinians?

Originally posted by FMF
But Arabs were evicted from where they lived.

And, to the extent that those evictions were forced by Israelis (my understanding is that many left on their own figuring that they'd return with the conquering Arab armies), that was wrong.

Originally posted by sh76
And, to the extent that those evictions were forced by Israelis (my understanding is that many left on their own figuring that they'd return with the conquering Arab armies), that was wrong.

You query the "extent" of the ethnic cleansing?

Originally posted by FMF
Perhaps answer the question? Are the people of New Jersey different from Palestinians?

If New Jersey were:

1) Not part of a country, but were a territory of the falling British Empire

2) The historical homeland and holy place of the Jews

3) Had large sections that were populated mostly by Jews

then, yes, the people of New Jersey would/should be able to live with part of the land being a Jewish state.

Originally posted by FMF
You query the "extent" of the ethnic cleansing?

To the extent it was actually done it was wrong. I don't know what more you want than that. You want me to say it was wrong to a greater extent than it was actually done?

Originally posted by sh76
If New Jersey were:

1) Not part of a country, but were a territory of the falling British Empire

2) The historical homeland and holy place of the Jews

3) Had large sections that were populated mostly by Jews

then, yes, the people of New Jersey would/should be able to live with part of the land being a Jewish state.

So the human rights of the Palestinians were cancelled because these Europeans wanted to go the Levant and not New Jersey. Would you have cancelled the American's rights if the European Jews had chosen to go to New Jersey?

Originally posted by sh76
To the extent it was actually done it was wrong. I don't know what more you want than that. You want me to say it was wrong to a greater extent than it was actually done?

Your wording is suddenly opaque. It feels like you're trying to deny something but don't want to come out and say it.

Originally posted by sh76
Palestine wasn't a country. It was a British creation. Looking at who was a "majority" in the whole of what the British called "Palestine" is arbitrary.

Splitting Palestine between the Jews and Arabs based on where each lived was the most logical thing to do.

Boy, your history sucks.

First, Palestine was an accepted geographical entity under the Ottoman Empire.

Second, the British didn't "create" or define Palestine. The UK had a Mandate under the League of Nations to administer the territory of Palestine in the best interests of the people there.

Who but the majority of the people of Palestine should have had the authority to decide what happened in Palestine? You also seem woefully ignorant of the actual details of the rejected partition plan which would have left large numbers (perhaps even more then Jews) of Arabs in the Zionist state (though virtually no Jews would have been left in the smaller Arab state).

Come back and talk to me after you've done some rudimentary research.