Nothing is impossible about this. The key settlements are Ariel, Maale Adumim and Gush Etzion. None of these would hurt the sustainability of a Palestinian state at all if Israel were to keep them. Trust me Israel wouldn't let that happen without a fight, which means not so nice consequence for the middle east. And let's hope not. For the first time in millennia the Jewish people are in control of their on faith and not subject to their "masters". And I hope you are not comparing Israel to South Africa. You don't wanna go down that road.To me it seems that the presence of the West Bank settlements makes a "two state solution" nigh on impossible.
Just how does one go about drawing a border to delineate this mess into two states? (The magenta regions represent the settlements.)
In the long term, the most likely outcome is a "one state solution" and, given the demographics of the region, that means an end to the Jewish character of the state.
In a nutshell, Jewish Israelis will eventually find themselves in a position similar to that of South Africa's Afrikaners.
Stesilaus
Cow4ever's forum posts
[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="gaming25"] lol. Dont even make me laugh. What I am trying to do is get down to the point of the reasons why the conflict over there is the way that it is and ways to solve it. And the reason why there is current problems are connected to what happened back in the 40s.gaming25no, they are connected to things that happened before that, don't argue over things youre not aware of. the conflict happened for a whole bunch of reasons, its very easy to just lay blame on the Jews/Israel/Zionism , when it goes deeper than that. even Arab nationalism , to an extent is a factor here , the 1920s-40s were really the birth of modern Arab Nationalism , which is part of the reason why the Palestinians complained at all , beforehand they didn't seem to care who ruled the country. but if youre talking about the 40s, the Jewish population was at around 600,000 , so it made sense to split the mandate up , with Jerusalem being an international city. of course, on the ground that didn't happen , Arab and Jewish towns that were supposed to be under the sovreignty of the opposite state started to arm themselves. the only difference is, the Jews won and were able to keep those towns , the Arabs didn't (for the most part, there were certain cases of Jewish towns getting depopulated due to Arab invasions) I am not disagreeing that Arab Nationalism couldve played a part in it. But a fact still remains that tons of Arabs were still living there and that they werent in full agreement of the split. Was the Arabic reaction of war called for? I personally dont think it was, but the fact remains that the Arabs were the majority and that their tensions arose because they had been as such a majority for hundreds of years. Perhaps a better deal was to relenquish the land back to the Palestinians after being owned for all of those years. The Jews where in majority in the land assigned to them. And now they couldn't relinquish it back since it never was owned by the Palestinians. Never ever.
Vote in the poll ya'll. It's very important to understand how people's view is of this
[QUOTE="gaming25"][QUOTE="Cow4ever"] I really don't understand your point. 1.5 million Arabs live in Israel.Darkman2007I am talking about in the 40s when the conflict arose. the conflict arose before that, there were Arab riots in the 1920s, in both the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem , as well as Hebron , where most of the Jewish community fled afterwards. yes, the Jews were expelled from Hebron (of course nobody mentions that), and that community was there for centuries, so this had little to do with zionism . Some fled and hundreds where massacred.
[QUOTE="Cow4ever"][QUOTE="gaming25"] Not really. There werent that many Jewish people living in Israel before the last century for a long time.gaming25You said the Jewish culture just moved there. While alot of Jews did. The culture had been there for 3000 years with thousands of Jews having a presence there always. I am well aware that the culture was there for thousands of years, but the reason why we have a conflict over there is because of the events that have happen in the modern era. So if we're talking about the modern area why does it matter Jews arrived in the 19th century?
[QUOTE="Cow4ever"][QUOTE="gaming25"] Sure, but that is not what happened, and instead the Palestinians who were still part of what would become Israel were still living there, so what I said still apllies.gaming25I really don't understand your point. 1.5 million Arabs live in Israel. I am talking about in the 40s when the conflict arose. I still don't understand your point. Palestinians got a land but turned it down.
[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="gaming25"] There were over 700,000 Palestinians living in current Israel before leaving (and not being able to go back), that is a lot of people to conflict with, so you cant just give away a nation imo when there are so many people from a different culture there. You cant have a place that has two huge cultures, one that has been living there for hundreds of years, and another, who just moved there 20 years before, and just give it to the people who had just arrived especially when so many people who already live there.gaming25considering there was a continuous Jewish precense in the land since 1200BC, id say your statement was pretty flawed. Not really. There werent that many Jewish people living in Israel before the last century for a long time. You said the Jewish culture just moved there. While alot of Jews did. The culture had been there for 3000 years with thousands of Jews having a presence there always.
This is btw how big Israel was after the war. Not really huge.
Log in to comment