I’m sure the Jordanians would be thrilled with this “new” idea.
It’s not like they haven’t fought a war against the Palestinians who tried to take over Jordan resulting in thousands of casualties.
Oh wait…
So - there’s no fucking way this would work.
In the Arab world everybody pretty much hates everybody, usually with very good reason. And that’s just the sunnis among themselves, not counting the shia/sunni off and on war going for the last 1300 years or so.
And Iranians hate all Arabs in general because a bunch of desert raiders destroyed their world empire due to a string of lucky circumstances, something which they haven’t gotten over for over 1300 years.
We’re slowly creeping towards option 1). I don’t see much chance of 2) happening. But that’s just my personal feeling based on limited local experience…
You mean like the 900,000 Jews ethnically cleansed from Arab and other Muslim countries?
And like how the Palestinian Authority has a “judenfrei” policy and expels all Jews (including those who were married to Palestinians)?
And how the Palestinians are systematically expelling Christians of Arab background? (And execute anyone if they find out he or she converted to Christianity from Islam?)
I’m sorry, I don’t play double standards. Why would Israel be a “pariah” and the Muslim countries (including the PA) not already be “pariahs.”
I am not familiar with these policies. Do you have a link for them? Because the PA at least pays lip service to religious freedom:
"Hanan Ashrawi, a top Palestinian leader, who told Israeli journalists in 2014: “Any person, be he Jewish, Christian or Buddhist, will have the right to apply for Palestinian citizenship. Our basic law prohibits discrimination based on race or ethnicity.”
If they committed those acts today, those countries would be considered pariahs for doing so.
@Jewbacca is being kind, but I will say it like it is. The truth of the matter, boiled down the the basics, is that peace is solely in the hands of the Palestinians, period. There are only two requirements to reach a permanent peace agreement 1) that the Palestinian Authority recognize Israel’s right to exist, and 2) renounce, denounce and stop all violence against Israel and it’s people. That’s it. That’s all that’s required and that’s all that’s ever been required. The leadership in the OT’s do this and they are on their way to statehood, investment in their country, etc. All kinds of good from simply renouncing their hatred for the Jews. They don’t even have to stop personally hating Jews, they just need to officially declare they will not act in violence and recognize their right to exist.
These are not outrageous demands. The fact that the Palestinian leadership has kept its people in bondage because their hatred runs so deep that they will cut their nose to spite their faces, is not Israel’s fault. The Palestinians have been offered peace, time and time and time and time again and they refused. Because they don’t dare recognize Israel, do not dare to renounce the murder of Jews. This is their own fault. I have very little sympathy for people who choose hate over peace. That is exactly what is happening and has been for decades.
They are convinced Allah will deliver them a genocide of the Jews and they are willing to wait. Well, they will wait forever and they will be miserable because that’s what hate causes, misery.
Is it wrong to make them preconditions when there isn’t room for negotiation? Feels like there might be an impediment if you leave them out, as it would imply they’re negotiable.
Just so we’re clear you are claiming that requiring the Palestinians to renounce as official policy to kill all Jews is a barrior to the peace process. So the Palistinians wanting to kill all Jews isn’t a barrier, but the Jews requiring that they stop trying to kill all Jews is? Doublespeak much?
The problem is, recognition of Israel’s right-to-exist and renunciation of violence are the only negotiating chits the Palestinians have, so practically speaking, you can’t ask them to concede these points prior to commencing negotiations.
I am claiming that any preconditions set by either party act as an impediment to the prospect of a negotiated settlement of the conflict.
If you can explain to me what a negotiated end to the conflict without the requirement that Palistinians stop trying to Kill all Jews looks like, I’ll eat my foot. Not requiring sides to stop killing each other as part of a negotiated end to a conflict is self contradictory nonsense. Ending the conflict means ending trying to kill the other side. The whole idea of an end to the conflict requires that precondition.
Everyone involved–the Israelis, Palestinians, and outside mediators–know full well that a final peace agreement will require mutual recognition of the right to exist, as well as the renunciation of violence. The only questions are 1) how much land under Israeli control will be ceded to the Palestinian state, and 2) how Jerusalem will be dealt with, in order to get to that final peace agreement.
Do you bother to stop and examine how nuts what you just said is? Could you live next door to your neighbor if they do not agree that your house and property are your house and property and you life have value and cannot be taken on a whim? Conceding that people have a right to exist and further live without the fear of violence is the precondition to any human relationship.
It is a bar to negotiating peace to say that unalterable self evident preconditions are preconditions? You agree they are preconditions to peace, but they shouldn’t be preconditions for a peace deal? I’m genuinely confused.
No. But if my neighbor was 100% convinced that the house I was living in was rightfully his–that everything I have I had stolen from him–I would seek to work out our differences on this score.
So, I take this to mean that if you felt someone had stolen your home and possessions, and had displaced you and your family from land you felt was rightfully yours, you would not put up a fight–you would simply walk away and let them keep it all?
Suppose the Palestinians agree, pre-negotiations, to recognize Israel and renounce violence. What, exactly, do they have to negotiate with? That is, what are their bargaining chips?
As a fellow-American, you have alternate means of seeking redress if you feel I’ve stolen from you–namely, the courts. So no.
Not pursing racial genocide isn’t a freaking bargaining chip for peace deals because there is no rational non-double speak way to have a settlement with racial genocide. It’s like advocating peace with one side still shooting and telling the side not shooting the other side shouldn’t have to stop firing for there to be a peace deal. And you are exactly right, they have no chips. They have no chips to play, and yet they continue in their racist genocidal quest. It’s why the place is a hell hole. Fortunately Israel has a strong moral conscience and is willing to offer them the right to life and even a country, when most other even modern western countries would make no such deal and would have invaded and occupied Palestine by now with far less restraint.
The genocidal desires are the thing baring peace, not Israel’s demand they be allowed to exist. The notion is absurd.
Peace deals are often hammered out while the combatants are still fighting. I dare say that’s the rule, not the exception.
No, they have two chips:
Recognition of Israel’s right to exist
The renunciation of violence
I agree, which is why I believe they will eventually negotiate a two-state solution, rather than continue down the road to becoming an apartheid state.