Two state Solution - is it possible?

[onegrumpyoldwoman]

I think the situation is comparable, geographically, to the Partitioning of British India. in 1947.

To stop bloody Hindu/Muslim fighting it was proposed that the Muslims were given their own State of Pakistan. This was made up of the two most Northern states of India which were split by part of India. They were West and East Pakistan
The reason for this was that these states had the biggest Muslim population already.

So Muslims headed North to their new country and Hindus headed South into the rest of India.

So far so good, - but not for long.

Bear with me as I get to the "kicker".

West Pakistan started trying to foist it's will on East Pakistan, which East Pakistan resisted. A bloody Civil War ensued which resulted in the break away of East Pakistan that became Bangladesh. The human cost in the War of Bangladeshi Independence was 3 million dead, in 8 months 2 weeks and 6 days. It is classed as a "Genocide".

Ghandi tried to make peace between the warring parties by suggesting a land corridor was established between the two countries that went across India. Rumour has it that this what what caused his assassination in 1948 by a Hindu Nationalist.

Well done to those who have got this far.🙂

There is a similar situation in the Holy Land.
There are two pockets of Palestinian people separated by Israel.
Each are controlled by a different group (Hamas controls Gaza - and Fatah controls The West bank} They have different ideologies.

Personally I can't see how a single state for the Palestinian people is possible.

Brief comprehension lesson
I can read and comprehend perfectly fine thank you. Don't write what you don't mean it would be far easier

You said
I'm pretty sure that Israel would love it if Palestinians no longer wanted to attack and kill them.

You are now saying
"Israel would love it if Palestinians no longer wanted to attack and kill them." (what I said) says that the terrorists who attacked and killed Israelis (on October 7th, and at various attacks before and since) were Palestinian. If no Palestinians wanted to kill them, that would make Israel happy. This is true (and neither dehumanising nor a sweeping statement).
None of that explanation was in your first post so I am not sure why you're surprised I picked it up the way I did. I also think you should not say Palestinians but Hamas. Just like I would never say Israelis are killing Palestinians I would clarify and say IDF.

It's what the words I wrote mean. Hence the comprehension lesson.

It is still an occupied territory. Israel controls it's borders, imports/exports, Palestinians cannot leave without permission from Israel. It is not an independent state Israel very much controls things including how much food comes in, seas, water.

many prominent international institutions, organizations and bodies—including the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, UN General Assembly (UNGA), European Union (EU), African Union, International Criminal Court (ICC) (both Pre-Trial Chamber I and the Office of the Prosecutor), Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch—as well as international legal experts and other organizations, argue that Israel has occupied Palestinian territories including Gaza since 1967.1 While they acknowledge that Israel no longer had the traditional marker of effective control after the disengagement—a military presence—they hold that with the help of technology, it has maintained the requisite control in other ways.

You're just backtracking your original words were clear there was no ambiguity with them,

And I said Palestinians because whilst many of the terrorists who attacked Israel on October 7th were Hamas, my understanding is that some non-Hamas Palestinians also took part.

And certainly not all other terrorist attacks have been Hamas. There are other Palestinian terrorist organisations which would very definitely say they were not Hamas, but share their goal of destroying Israel and killing Israelis.

I think what Israel cares about is a lack of desire to kill them - not which terrorist organisation it is.

Nope.

You're right that there was no ambiguity. But wrong in your comprehension. You just jumped to the worst possible (incorrect) interpretation.

If Palestinians desire to kill Israelis why is the death ratio what it is?

1 Israeli (most likely military) : 23+ Palestinian (most likely civilian)

Your free to think there should be no Jewish state and that Israel should be invaded and forcibly dissolved. I'm free to thinks that's horrible.

The kind, peace loving zionists!!

Your free to think there should be no Palestinian state and that Palestine should be invaded and forcibly dissolved. I'm free to thinks that's hypocritical.

The poster you are responding to thinks that the option of a democratic, equal rights for all state should be explored. Unless you are of the opinion that one party is subhuman, it is a potentially viable option.

Do I think that? I don't recall ever saying that I did.

You just jumped to the worst possible (incorrect) interpretation.
Because I assumed you meant Palestinians when you said Palestinians. How stupid of me

I think things are tense enough so people should be conscious of how they word things. If you were talking about Palestinian terrorists you should have said Palestinian terrorists. I have been pulled up loads of times on these threads for saying Israel instead of Israeli government and the IDF. I have corrected my language as a result so not to cause offence when none was intended.

Actually you assumed I meant all Palestinians when I said Palestinians.

I agree that Palestinian terrorists would have been more accurate though.

What about Egypt who also control a border with Gaza?

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2022/4/26/egypts-role-gaza-more-than-mediator

Israel only occupied Gaza due to the 1967 war which they won (errr don’t start wars if you can’t win them) and then Egypt didn’t want Gaza back.

Why not?

Surely it would have made more sense to create a Palestinian state in partnership with Egypt which Gaza was part of rather than Israel, the occupation?

Same goes for Jordan and the West Bank.

Because the Palestinian terrorists don't have the military capability to kill more Israelis. Nothing to do with lack of desire.

And because the Hamas terrorists are embedded within the Palestinian population, so when Israel bomb them there are often also civilian casualties.

But you know that.

But in an ordinary year Israel kill more Palestinians too? Every single year Israel kill more Palestinians than the other way around. Surely that means Palestinians are more at risk and need more protection than Israel, you don't seem too worried about their safety though, why is that?

Again, because the Palestinian terrorists don't have the military capability to kill more Israelis. Nothing to do with lack of desire. Because the Israeli military keep the terrorist capability low, every year.

And because IDF soldiers can't tell whether a Palestinian is a terrorist or not, whether they are about to be attacked by a terrorist - and need to shoot first to remain alive - or not.

And inevitably in such a tense, conflict-filled environment some IDF soldiers are trigger happy, and some Israelis (wrongly) commit revenge murders after a Palestinian terrorist has murdered other Israeli civilians, and some Israelis commit murder first. No one people have a monopoly on crime.

I don't think either Israelis or Palestinians need my protection. I'm not a policeman to the world, and I don't want my government to take that role (which would be pretty futile given the amount of conflict in the world)

I respond on these threads when people come out with stuff which I think is obviously wrong. I'm a logical person, and I don't think emotional responses are helpful to understand the conflict and consider possible solutions - I think realism is more useful.

And unchallenged, I think the anti-Israel rhetoric is harmful to our society. There's a lot of it. So I challenge it.

I need to point out these stats are pre 7th Oct

I didn't talk about anyone needing your protection. Why would I?

It isn't anti Israel to point out the reality that Palestinians are at far more risk from Israel than the other way around. I would have thought with your logical mind you would realise that. Its surprising that one so logical can ignore all of the very real risks to Palestinians and just focus on Israelis. I'm not sure why you would think that you have to be 'emotional' to realise that. The stats speak for themselves really.

I just looked at stats for 2022, which came to about 8:1. That's 182 Palestinians killed by Israelis, versus 22 Israelis killed by Palestinians.

Of the 146 Palestinians killed in the West Bank by Israelis, 42 Palestinians (29%) were killed while armed or allegedly armed. Most of the 42 also opened fire at Israeli forces or Israeli civilians.

All the 32 Palestinians killed in Gaza were killed in a military operation called 'Operation Breaking Dawn). 90% were killed by airstrikes. I don't know how many were armed. The site I'm taking this from says at least half the people killed didn't take part in the fighting.

Additionally, 22 Palestinians were killed by Palestinian terrorists (15 were killed in the Gaza Strip by rockets or mortar bombs which Palestinian militants fired at Israel and landed in the Gaza Strip during “Operation Breaking Dawn”; 2 were killed in the West Bank by Palestinian gunfire, and 5 executed by Hamas)

Edited: I included relative population sizes, but actually I'm not sure that's relevant.

It doesn't represent the risk well.

Rackets from Gaza are targeting Israeli cities all the time. When attackers from Gaza managed to cross the fence, it lead to bloodshed in Israel.
The fact that Israel is mostly able to protect their people doesn't mean that they aren't at risk, it doesn't mean they aren't under attack.

We shouldn’t forget to mention the Palestinian Authorities ‘Pay to Slay’ policy which pays stipends to Palestinians for killing Israelis. Incentivising terrorism, they spend $270 million a year on these payments.

Oh, and even after you exclude the 42 Palestinians in the West Bank who were killed after opening fire at Israelis, only 63 of the remaining 104 were judged to have been killed unlawfully (by a human rights organisation).

Those 63 unlawful deaths included:

• 21 Palestinians who were killed during incidents in which Palestinians threw stones at Israeli forces or at roads;
• 14 Palestinians were killed after attacking Israeli forces, but after the danger they posed – if any – had passed, or when non-lethal means could have been used to thwart it;
• 3 al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades operatives, at least one of them armed, were executed in Nablus by Israeli police who stood in the way of the car they were traveling in and fired dozens of bullets at it.

So illegal and avoidable, but not a complete mystery.

That leaves 25 unlawful deaths unaccounted for. Which doesn't stack so badly against the 22 Israelis killed by Palestinians.

Any deaths are bad. But it's a very different picture from the one you painted

If you ignore the fact that the IDF shouldn't be in the West Bank at all of course. If you take into account the fact that Israel are illegal occupiers it changes things a little bit doesn't it. Have Palestinians given the IDF permission and police them or did Israel just take on that role themselves? Now how many deaths would have happened if the IDF weren't there at all, if they weren't illegally occupying, if they didn't have settlers illegally living there?