These are the two best posts on the thread, both are true in their own way.
Whether you call Israel an Apartheid State or not, the fact is that the present system is not sustainable or beneficial to the security or moral structure of the State. If Israel wants stable long term security, they will need to establish a system that promotes the safety, security, and freedom of those who live in the region that are not Jewish. In addition, a long term stable Israeli State also will require a stable Palestinian State as its neighbor.
There are two main issues that are preventing this:
1. The definition of the Israeli state and the precursor for peace negotiations cannot be to just demand that the Palestinians agree that it should be a "Jewish Only State." That definition does not support the protection of the Israeli people, and is phrased in a way to purposefully prevent peace negotiations from occurring.
This definition needs to include that the protection and support of the Jewish people will be central tenet of the Country, and that this protection and support is maintained by Israel's commitment to the rights and freedoms of other great people living in Israel. As well as the promotion of a peaceful and stable Palestinian neighbor State.
2. The calls from Hamas and others to destroy Israel,
and comments by Hamas officials that they would use a future Palestinian State to base attacks on Israel cannot be ignored. A Palestinian State should have the right to have as many Palestinians as they want to move there, but the borders will need to be monitored by the UN. There will also need to be agreements before any Palestinian State is formed on how attacks from any future Palestinian state on Israel would require military responses from Israel, and how a Palestinian task force that is internationally monitored would need to be set up in the new Palestinian State to prevent such attacks from occurring.
Parky's/Thuder's post was already responded to here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7233954&postcount=4052. It has yet to be responded to. These fictional and misrepresented claims by Parky have been addressed previously, but once you understand his motivations and tactics, you'll see that he simply ignores the responses and continues making these claims.
I disagree with your responses to Thunder, but as I said, "Whether you call Israel an Apartheid State or not, the fact is that the present system is not sustainable or beneficial to the security or moral structure of the State. "
What happened post-67 was never meant to be sustainable and the core issue here is that Israel did not solve most of the issues back then unilaterally hoping for a better environment to start negotiations for peace in the future.
The responsibility of those residing in PA controlled areas lie on the shoulders of the PA, not Israel. The WB is a disputed region.
Well if it is not sustainable, than they need a sustainable solution.
I think that solution should include land swaps including land that Jordan gives up, the Israeli's should keep the Golan Heights for security reaons, and there should be a discussion on rights.
The demand that Israel be a Jewish State is a loaded term, and should be changed, and the Palestinians intentions largely from Hamas that they would continue to engage in terrorist attacks on Israel whether they get a State or not needs to be addressed.
Its 'Jewish and democratic state', not 'Jewish only state'. Basic laws protect every citizen of Israel regardless of religion or ethnicity (ie Right for Equality, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Protest, etc.)
I think you have it backwards here. The PA/Hamas/PLO has been pushing for the same status quo that currently resides in Gaza, a 'Jew-free zone'.
The PA/Hamas refuse to recognize not simply the Jewish character of Israel, but its existence altogether.
What you fail to recognize is if the PLO/PA actually recognize Israel as a state at its basic level (minus the Jewish bit), this would somehow negate their claims of a 'right of return' of the millions of self-proclaimed refugees. The same concept applies to the Arabs reluctance to take Israeli citizenship in E. J'lem, choosing permanent residency instead.
The demand to recognize Israel as a Jewish State is a loaded term for two reasons.
1) It does not address the rights on non-Jewish people living in Israel.
2) It is designed to prevent Palestinians from returning to their homes and homeland.
As far as rights go, this should just be explicitly addressed. As I know that you are not worried about this, but the Palestinians are. For the right to return, they should just give the Palestinians the right to return to the newly created Palestinian State while maintaining limits on the return to Israel.
One way to address this would be to base this definition in a similar fashion to
Article 4 of the Palestinian Constitution.
ARTICLE 4
1.
Islam Judaism is the official religion in
PalestineIsrael. Respect and sanctity of all other heavenly religions shall be maintained.
2.
The principles of Islamic Shari’a shall be the main source of legislation. The protection of the Jewish people and Israeli citizens shall be the main source of legislation.
3.
Arabic Hebrew shall be the official language.
This is the standard practice of the PA/PLO as well. Welcome to the concept of double-speak, brought to you by Arafat.
The core issue with the above, is assuming that the PA/PLO/Hamas want to actually solve the 'refugee' issue (which they don't). Apart from this, is the lack of movement in changing the PLO charter (ie calls for jihad, adherence to Oslo accords and previous peace agreements, etc.) This thread has covered it quite a bit, so read up on it.
The UN has failed utterly in monitoring any border/DMZ in the past, be it the Sinai or Lebanon. Their mandates, currently in Lebanon, don't cover, and have never covered, an active role against preventing further violence in the region. What makes you think they or UNIFIL will actually function properly here?
Well, I don't, that's why I consider it to be one of the two main barriers to finding a peaceful solution.
Clearly, the lost of trust on both sides that the other party will negotiate in good faith, and the issue of Palestinian access to holy sites in Jerusalem are major issues, but the demand of a "Jewish State," and the fact that Hamas has said that they will use any future State to base attacks on Israel are extremely difficult things to overcome.
This issue would only get worse if the Palestinians are granted Statehood in the UN by being able to circumvent the US veto as you noted here:
For the 100+ pages this thread has turned into, I haven't yet encountered the possible tactic the PA will try to circumvent the US veto against a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state. It was mentioned in March in a Jpost article, with some slight errors in the article itself, most notably that this
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 377 (dubbed 'vetoing the veto') has caught Israel by surprise (which it has not), but I have yet to see it in this extensive thread.
Jpost article:
How Palestinians will use the GA to advance statehood
I dare say that when this UNGA 337 came into fruition, on the legal argument, the USSR was correct in stating what it did, where this article goes further into detail as to the issues with UNGA 337:
The UN Charter Cannot Support GA Resolution 377
The rest of the article is worth a read.
Abbas has declared that he would use UNGA resolution 337 to his advantage in the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state along the 1949 armistice lines in its attempt to draw yet another comparison to apartheid era South Africa and its dealings with Namibia.
Thoughts?
