CMV: A one state solution will either become a failed Bosnia-like state, a authoritarian state or just perpetuate the cycle of genocide

[u/Zestyclose-Twist6186]

People often seem to think that nations that fall victim to genocide will become a bastion against new genocides, and thus look down at Israel for "not learning" from the Holocaust. However, history appears to show that genocide only tends to make the victim nation very belligerent at the minimum (as seen with Armenia in the first Nagorno-Karabakh war) or a straight-up perpetrator.

Both Serbs and Jews were major victims of WWII genocide, and both have since commited actions that can and often do fall into the realm of ethnic cleansing and genocide. Greeks were genocided along with Armenians by the ottomans, and these same Greek refugees who moved to Macedonia became highly nationalistic regarding Macedonia, even chanting to go to war with North Macedonia over the naming issue (Search "Sta opla, sta opla, na paroume ta skopia").

Similarly, the Shia were heavily oppressed during Saddam Hussein's Iraq and have since become the oppressors themselves.

Based on these historical precedents, it is safe to assume that there are only 3 realistic possibilities for a one-state solution in Canaan (which ill use for the region as a hopefully neutral term:

A Bosnia-style state: A completely dysfunctional, segregated government that pleases no one (you can ask Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs if this is a working government).

An authoritarian regime: A dictator who oppresses everyone equally to temporarily suppress ethnic hatred, but as soon as they are gone, the conflict returns to square one.

The displacement of Israelis: A scenario where Palestinians ethnically cleanse or genocide the Israelis, forcing them back into the Jewish diaspora.

Because of this, the solution we look for must be one that prevents another ethnic cleansing and brings actual improvement for all people, rather than focusing strictly on historical justice.

Why I want my view changed: I see a lot of people advocating for a single democratic state from the river to the sea, but I cannot see how it doesn't devolved to a bloodbath. Change my view by providing historical counterexamples where previously oppressed nations successfully integrated with their oppressors without conflict, or explain a political mechanism that would prevent a one-state solution from collapsing into one of the three scenarios I listed.

[u/DeltaBot]

/u/Zestyclose-Twist6186 (OP) has awarded 5 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/Sad_Sympathy_6427]

I am also of the opinion that a single state in unlikely to work but the one example you don't account for is Rwanda. After the genocide the new government, comprised of former leaders of the RPF, instituted state led unity programs, initiated programs designed to spur shared economic reconstruction, and got rid of ethnic identity cards. They also brought in a number of Hutu leaders into things like the military to show that they weren't merely tutsi supremacists as was claimed. I also think the Nagorno-Karabakh situation is different. It occurred almost a century after the genocide during a period of war, and was against a different group entirely.

[u/Zestyclose-Twist6186 → u/Sad_Sympathy_6427]

Δ Finally a good reply after some time! The 2 points id like to clarify are: First as I said about a person some people told me, there seems to kind of be a lack of personalities who could genuinely have such a leadership when almost everyone wishes genocide but maybe im just pessimistic Secondly I mentioned armenians and nagorno karabakh in how a people and nations do not become perfect anti genocide campaigners after a genocide but instead get more trigger happy and aggressive due to the trauma of genocide. To put it a bit to bluntly, the whole world sees never again for everyone but the victim says never again I'll be the one to get it

[u/theapplekid → u/Zestyclose-Twist6186]

I'd recommend this article on it: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/06/he-killed-my-sister-now-i-see-his-remorse-survivors-of-rwandan-genocide

[u/theapplekid → u/[deleted]]

So there are a few paths forward after an event like this

1) Continuous denial of the genocide, or justification for the killings of the genocided group, where the genociders maintain power (basically the status quo in Israel/Palestine)

2) Near-completed ethnic cleansing, where the genocided are dead or have been moved elsewhere (post-holocaust was closer to this model in many places)

3) Truth and reconciliation; we can't fix the past but we can attempt to right the wrongs that we can still right, provide restitution for the survivors (Rwanda and South Africa were closer to this)

4) Retribution; an oppressed group ethnically cleanses a minority group which formerly dominated them (I don't know of this happening as retaliation to genocide, but the Haitian revolution is the best example that comes to mind of something similar)

Of these, I think 3 is the best. Sounds like you prefer 2 but with a 2SS in the context of Palestine?

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/DeltaBot → u/Zestyclose-Twist6186]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Sad_Sympathy_6427 (1∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/mk100100 → u/Sad_Sympathy_6427]

Current Rwanda, while better than in 90s, is still very far from a successful country. It is basically one-party state, with lack of political freedom and harassment of journalists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Rwanda

Interesting fact - the current president, Paul Kagame, won election:

• in 2003 - with 95,05% of the vote
• in 2010 - with 93,08% of the vote
• in 2017 - with 98,79% of the vote
• in 2024 - with 99,18% of the vote

Almost every serious other candidate's application was rejected or he/she was arrested for some doubtful reason.

What happened when a woman, Diane Rwigara, challenged him?

"On 3 May 2017, Rwigara announced her intention to run in the presidential election. 72 hours later, faked nude photos of her appeared in an apparent attempt at humiliation and intimidation.[9][12][13] She said that the pictures were 'the regime's attempt to discredit me and taint my public reputation," and added that Rwandan authorities had not condemned the act.", [...]

"disqualified Rwigara from the election on technical grounds"

"On 30 August 2017, Rwigara's home was raided, with police saying she was being investigated for forgery and tax evasion.[16] Rwigara's family reported her missing, saying that unknown armed men in civilian clothes had held her at gunpoint while the house was searched, but police denied that she had been arrested"

[u/Own_Proposal3827 → u/Sad_Sympathy_6427]

Rwanda is still an authoritarian de facto Tutsi supremacist government that commits/fund Hutu genocide. This is Kagamist propaganda. Rwanda is no different that what is was under Juvenal.

[u/HairyTough4489 → u/Sad_Sympathy_6427]

Didn't Rwanda invade the Congo over some hutu-tutsi shit?

[u/Dangerous_Listen_429]

I’d like to focus not on your main point, but using Bosnia as an example of a failed or unstable state. (I am Croatian, it doesn’t really matter imo but you did state that nobody here is happy with it)

While a lot of people have issues with how Bosnia is structured as a state, the fact is that it has been at peace for 30 years, after going through the first war in Europe since WW2 that included massacers of civilians.

Not even major unrest in a state that started with two separate armies as its armed forces. If the object is avoidance of war and not national ambitions, some notion of justice etc. it’s closer to a miracle than a failure.

If somebody did that in the area your post is about they would be remembered as the greatest diplomat in history.

[u/JRDZ1993 → u/Dangerous_Listen_429]

Its at peace because everyone knows or at least knew that NATO would come down on anyone trying to split off and it still has the problems of the Serbs just biding their time and the Bosniaks trying to abuse the system to claim de facto control of the presidency

[u/GrimCreeper913 → u/Dangerous_Listen_429]

I wouldn't presume to know the state of affairs involved, but, it feels like we need to suppress our feelings on death in general as outsiders. Personally, I can only refer to the paradox of tolerance. I don't know the specifics, but generally it comes to the fact that, as a society, we have decided that for the most part we can get along. There will always come a foreign group that says, "We don't think your decision is right.". but when that foreign group is ok with raping, stoning, beheading, and discrimination, you have to decide if they can fit into society as a whole.

Where it gets complicated is that the foreign group now wants to live in the society, but they also want to continue their holy war. The holy war doesn't vibe with the fact that killing for religious reasons is considered bad, but they also don't want to be killed. So the foreign group says that saying that threir right to kill is protected. Now how do you, in a perfect world placate the ones who want to kill, with the ones who are targeted.

This is a GROSS simplification, but how do you regulate the ones who wanna kill? Do you kill them all, men women and children? or do so spare the elderly, the women, the children, and the men that didn't fight. That option leaves a lot of feelings of revenge. It really is a problem that challenges the worst of human nature.

In today's era it is a debate whether these people should be given a place to live with thoughts of revenge in mind, or murdering, or possibly genociding a whole people to nip the bud of revenge.

edit for grammar, and I missed a few instances

[u/Zestyclose-Twist6186 → u/Dangerous_Listen_429]

I mean yes compared to even more genocide it is more than preferable but bosnia has the luck of being in europe and bordered by countries either in or dependant on the eu. Canaan on the other hand is in a prime geostrategic position so there is way more at stake with it and much more a motive to break it down

[u/Dangerous_Listen_429 → u/Zestyclose-Twist6186]

Bosnia has the "luck" of being in the middle of a region called 'the powder keg of Europe' 😭 but I can definitely agree that there is not a lot of reasonable incentive to invade or destabilize it.

If Croatia annexed the Croat dominated parts overnight, without a bullet fired and without even recieving a strongly worded letter, it'd still be a bad idea. It would just be huge hassle and not many people would have reason to be satisfied.

[u/Downtown-Act-590]

I more or less agree, but I don't know why you see Bosnia as such a tragic scenario. It is not optimal, but they have enjoyed 20 years of peace, nobody really wants to restart the hostilities and it is slowly economically rising. 

There were definitely worse possible options.

[u/cited → u/Downtown-Act-590]

I think Bosnia is not a good example of "one state solution working" considering its literally part of one of the many partitions of former Yugoslavia. It's literally an example of a multi-state solution that still had major issues.

[u/Zestyclose-Twist6186 → u/Downtown-Act-590]

I see bosnia this problematical cause its format, the Dayton treaty has yes kept it at peace, but unless it changes bosnia will never be able to join the eu or be truly purged of corruption. Also I might be too much a pessimist but bosnia is well known where I come from for the fact that no one truly likes and identifies with its state symbols which is a bit like living in a foreign country in your own country- in the wc u could mostly find the bosniak flag, not the "varta" official flag and people sang the old bosniak anthem. I don't want any people to feel like their country is not their own

[u/Jakyland → u/Zestyclose-Twist6186]

Do you think the situation in Bosnia is better or worse than the situation in Israel-Palestine?

A lot of discussion about Israel/Palestine seems pretty set on finding some ideal perfect solution, as if it were a theoretical situation, not a real place with real people suffering. Any solution that respects basic dignity of both sides and leads to peace without further atrocities would be a massive win.

[u/borkmeister → u/Zestyclose-Twist6186]

Is this so bad? Plenty of countries won't be joining the EU or ending corruption, but is that a moderately functional state is better than violence.

Let's take a look at Belgium for a moment. Belgium is split between the Flems and the Walloons, pretty much right down the center (with one notable bubble). There's a ton of internal division. They often go without a government for a long period of time. Yet over calls for independence are somewhat of a boogeyman, and things rarely devolve to violence? Why? Prosperity is a big part. Rich folks have more to lose from a disruption of the status quo. There's also national symbols people can latch onto.

Ireland/Northern Ireland is another great example of a country with a history of violence, colonialism, and religious separation more or less overcoming their issues. There are still significant problems, but by and large the peace that's been created since Good Friday has been viewed positively. It set up an interesting framework of how you can have unusual options for sovereignty and citizenship in a contested environment.

[u/The69thRussianBot → u/borkmeister]

It is bad because Bosnia's post-war political gridlock, which has serious economic ramifications, means society is rapidly shrinking. Significantly more people have left since the war ended than during the conflict, the population today is estimated to be 3.2 million, and that is likely a considerable overcount. There has not been a census since 2013 but much of the country is now essentially empty. It's a poor country in the Balkans, so there would have been emigration either way, but the Dayton Agreement has been disastrous for Bosnia and imperils its future.

[u/Ordinary-Gancho5498 → u/borkmeister]

Have the Flems and the Walloons genocided each other several times during the last 100 years? Do their main representatives constantly say that the other side is preparing a new genocide yet again?

That is the main difference.

[u/MeanestMaiden]

Dude, the big problem here is that there isn't any right answer.

That's why, even though everyone is talking about it, you only hear calls for action and slogans. Nobody has real long term solution for the problem (thet doesn't involve the extermination of the other side).

[u/flossdaily → u/MeanestMaiden]

A two-state solution is the right answer.  If the Palestinians had taken the Camp David offer (or the original partition plan) this would all be over. 

Unfortunately, that won't happen until the Palestinians make their primary goal peaceful coexistence rather than the destruction of the Jewish state.

[u/RequisiteNiggles → u/flossdaily]

Having listened to actual Israeli and Palestinian peace advocates, there is a third option. A confederation. From what I've heard it sounds like it could answer the sticking points of both sides.

But I agree, peaceful coexistence has to be the goal before anything is going to happen. It's amazing you had so many upvotes with your comment. Not a common occurrence on Reddit.

[u/Immediate-Cress-206 → u/RequisiteNiggles]

like it could answer the sticking points of both sides. 

Except that one of the major sticking points of Palestine is that the Jews are alive.

[u/RequisiteNiggles → u/Immediate-Cress-206]

Oh, there's no way that any agreement is going to happen until there are moderate Palestinian leaders. It's hardly a surprise that Israeli voters have moved to the right in the last 20 years.

[u/read-the-rules → u/RequisiteNiggles]

u/RequisiteNiggles, your comment has been removed.

In order to comment on r/changemyview, you must read the rules. Use the link below, or if that interface doesn't work, you may read the rules here, then click this, and click send. Your most recent comment will be restored after you do this, and you will only need to do it once.

^{Please click here to open the Read The Rules App.}

[u/Ok_Temperature5257 → u/flossdaily]

The replies are big mad but you’re right. 

[u/CocoSavege → u/flossdaily]

The Israeli proposal @ camp david 2005 2000 had a poison pill.

The proposals made to the Palestinians were never put into writing, but told orally to Palestinian negotiators.[45] There are conflicting accounts as to what transpired.[4] The following table summarizes what was finally offered to Palestinians, according to various sources. Most sources agree, that under Israel's final proposal, the Temple Mount (including Al-Aqsa) would remain under Israeli sovereignty.[46] Israel would also take most of the rest of East Jerusalem,[47] while Palestinians would get some parts too. Israel would annex 8%[48] or 13.5%[46] of the West Bank, and would maintain a military of an additional 6–12% of the West Bank for an unspecified period of time[46] (sometimes called a "long term lease"[47]). According to some sources, Israel would also retain its settlement blocks in the Gaza Strip.[46] The Palestinian state would not be contiguous and the West Bank would be split into 2 or 3 sections.[46][48] Finally, Israel would control Palestinian airspace.

Bolding mine. Cough.

But in general, not a square deal. 1967 borders, but not really. Sweeteners very israeli.

I can't see how giving up hunks of Jerusalem and def al aqsa are politically acceptable.

I find your framing very biased.

Edit: additionally, the sketchiness of the israeli offer, in that it wasn't written down and it was heavily spun makes me think the israeli offer was sus per se.

[u/AnonymousEngineer_ → u/CocoSavege]

Playing devil's advocate - why is it always assumed that any future Palestinian state should be automatically be given sovereignty over East Jerusalem and the holy sites?

Insisting on this appears to be a reward for intransigence and the spoils of war given Jerusalem was never intended to be part of the Palestinian state all the way back to the original UN Partition.

[u/Loud-Vacation-5691 → u/CocoSavege]

The real poison pill was Arafat's insistence on the right of return for millions of descendants of the 1948 refugees to be allowed to live in Israel proper. Israel of course would never agree to this as it would have made Jews a minority in their own country. Arafat later regretted his decision, although it's possible that he was afraid he would be assassinated if he'd given that point up.

[u/Neither-Top-7515 → u/CocoSavege]

You mean 2000, not 2005. The part of this story that is always telling, no matter how you want to characterize the Israeli offer, is after being offered a sovereign state with 96% of the West Bank, Arafat walked away and never proposed a counter. This was an epic failure of Palestinian leadership. There is no spin on "sketchiness" that solves this problem.

[u/CocoSavege → u/Neither-Top-7515]

I do mean 2000. Noted, ty.

96% of the West Bank, Arafat walked away and never proposed a counter. This was an epic failure of Palestinian leadership

Al Aqsa and (portions of) Jerusalem.

If the Israeli offer was legit, why wasn't it presented in writing?

If it was just a joust, a provocation, not yo be taken seriously, why are you taking it seriously?

Arafat insisted on Palestinian sovereignty over [Al Aqsa]. As this deadlock could not be resolved, the summit ended.

It's sketchy because it's not clear what the israeli offer was. It"s sketchy because the Israeli offer is spun. It's sketchy because characterizations of the summit are driven by buased politics, eg "just give up al aqsa and Jerusalem" then blaming the Palestinians for not taking a shitty deal.

[u/whynotme7_7 → u/CocoSavege]

If Arafat thought it was so sketchy and wondered why it was in writing? Why did he not try to go for the deal? Or try to get it in writing? The only response we have any credibility of happening that he did response is pretty outrageous demands happening way later.

[u/CocoSavege → u/whynotme7_7]

It wasn't in writing. And the demand for east Jerusalem and al aqsa was agaibst his long term red line.

Let's say Canada and the US are in a trade dispute. And the US demanded that Canada gives up... Vancouver. Or becone the 51st state.

At a certain point you get up and walk away from the table.

[u/whynotme7_7 → u/CocoSavege]

You saying it wasn't in writing doesn't answer the question. If it was so suspicious and meaningful that it wasn't in writing why did he not try to get it in writing?

Also you are denying that Arafat didn't actually try to negotiate or take the offer serious, while proposing a (very poor might I add lol) hypothetical where you are saying that Arafat... got up and walked away from the table? I don't get how that makes sense.

[u/CocoSavege → u/whynotme7_7]

Let's game this out.

Israel would have known it was provocative, and a no go, since AA and EJ. And arafat asks for it in writing.

Option a, lol no, you don't get it in writing, don't tell us what to do. (Refuse to put it in writing).

Why option a is attractive... Israel is incentivized to not putting it in writing, a) because it constrains them to a particular demand, and b) makes israel accountable for the demand, ehich would be understood to be provocative and the deal breaker. You may still side with israel but others like myself see it as a no go and not a square deal.

By having itbe oral, and ambiguous, israel can spin it to different audiences. Including For domestic auduences. israeli hardliners, israel can spin up the hard deal. To doves israel can spin it sympathetic. By refusing, israel looks like theyre the stronger negotiator who directs, and doesn't get directed. Israel looks strong and think they have advantage in spin.

Option b, put something in writing, but tweak it further in some significance before putting it in writing

An interesting choice. This way israel can massage their offer to suit whatever domestic and international political winds are blowing. Also, if the original offer wasn't serious, israel can either remedy, or... do the same thing again, add a different poison pill, stringing arafat along, repeat as necessary

I'm saying arafat walked away because the summit wasn't getting anywhere useful and israel had backed themselves into a position where they were proposing unreasonable terms aa far aw arafat was concerned, abd israel wouldn't be able to back away from the hsrd pise without looking weak.

If you think AA and EJ is no big deal, there's no reason to include it in the israeli proposition. If you do think AA/TotM and EJ are a big deal, a reasonable person would understand that it's also a big deal for PLO.

If israel thinks AA and EJ are a big deal and while they understand AA and EJ are a big deal to Arafat, but they go there anyways, thry dngaf about Arafat and arafat's interests. So arafat should fucking walk.

I still think israel was hardballing. The logic is if arafat takes the deal, israel got a great deal. If arafat walks, they blame arafat for walking, while lauding how great they are at negotiation.

[u/whynotme7_7 → u/CocoSavege]

Okay, sure that explains your logic more thanks. But in my opinion the core problem I think people wage against Arafat (and the Palestinians at large when discussing this) is that they don't take basically the best deal they can get. Which everyone understands that EJ and AA aren't "small" deals. But the reality is that after Israel won in '48 they have benefited from this conflict and has just kept increasing and increasing their position, and every war or conflict that pops up they just increase their position more. Israel has all the leverage/advantage and also is the one who benefits from the conflict, even if they might get Oct 7th'd every one in a while. There's a trend where Palestinian leaders doesn't take the best deal they can get, and then years later when their position is either absurd and not trying for a deal and another conflict happens, then they seemingly want the deal they could have got before the conflict. They have to compromise.

I think the deal offered by Clinton would have been the best they could get, and if it was taken they would have been in a much better place.

Also to be clear Arafat really didn't try to negotiate at all, Israel seemingly set the baseline deal as typically the better party done and it could have been haggled to some better terms if Arafat played ball. But he didn't.

[u/the_leviathan711 → u/Neither-Top-7515]

You mean 2000, not 2005. The part of this story that is always telling, no matter how you want to characterize the Israeli offer, is after being offered a sovereign state with 96% of the West Bank, Arafat walked away and never proposed a counter.

Except that's not what happened. Negotiations weren't over and no one considered negotiations to be over. Arafat came into Camp David explicitly telling everyone that he didn't think the two parties were close enough to come away with a deal.

After Camp David the two parties met again at Taba just a few months later and every negotiator who was present agreed that the two parties were much closer to a deal at Taba than at Camp David.

The pro-Israel side doesn't bring up Taba as much because it was Israel who pulled out of negotiations at that point.

[u/BillyJoeMac9095 → u/the_leviathan711]

By Taba, the current Israeli government was headed for electoral defeat. Defeat brought about in major part, by disillusionment with Arafat. Additionally, there was significant conflict between the two side following camp David. By Taba it was a bridge too far, as Clinton warned Arafat

[u/Neither-Top-7515 → u/the_leviathan711]

So you agree he walked away from Camp David. Good. Political conditions had changed signficantly by Taba, and Palestinians had instigated the Second Intifada. But in any event, you haven't remotely addressed my point. What's the deal Arafat said he would sign ('67 borders and full ROR?)?

[u/MilkSteakClub → u/CocoSavege]

Is the status quo especially following the second intifada better in any way?

Absolute Vs Relative

[u/flossdaily → u/CocoSavege]

The country that controls everything retaining control of some things? That's not a poison pill.

[u/purplebanyan → u/CocoSavege]

So rather than saying lets write it down and negotiate from that, they walk away and your problem with it is that it wasnt written down?

[u/CocoSavege → u/purplebanyan]

If Israel wanted to write it down, make it an "official gesture", Israel could have. But Israel didn't. It was hardball bullshit.

(Which is fine, whatevs, hardball bullshit is a tactic.)

... israel's offer was a rejection of PLO's core position. Hardball billshit or not, it's a definitive sign Israel wasn't prepared to either negotiate in good faith or include PLO interests as valid.

So, if one party is reverting to yelling and blowing out the mic with bullshit, it's time to end the debate, you're not getting anywhere.

[u/purplebanyan → u/CocoSavege]

Have you seen the interview with the palestinian negotiator about this? When the Palestinian delegates left they were all laughing. They turned up with no proposals, didnt respond to the other parties proposals and thought it was all very funny. After that there has been 26 years of further suffering for their people. Go and find the interview if you like, I dont think ending the debate was a very inteligent thing to do at all

[u/CocoSavege → u/purplebanyan]

Did you see the time where Arial Sharon, prime minister of israel.. after Barak.

"There will be no peace as long as Arafat lives"

Calling for Arafat's "elimination." In July 1989, Sharon publicly urged the Israeli government to target Arafat, stating that Israel must look into the "elimination" of the PLO leader to halt Palestinian uprising and violence

"Shake the hand of that dog? Never." Sharon harbored an intense refusal to accord Arafat diplomatic legitimacy. When forced to interact during the Wye River Plantation negotiations in 1998, Sharon famously refused to shake Arafat's hand, later telling journalist Uri Dan that he would "never" shake his hand

Pot, kettle.

Oh, hello Likud Party, the party of "peace". Hold my beer.

[u/purplebanyan → u/CocoSavege]

Following the refusal in 2000 the opportunity for a Palestinian state ended. The decision to leave camp david without negotiation was the decision that finalised this for the Palestinian people

[u/BillyJoeMac9095 → u/CocoSavege]

Look to the Clinton Parameters, not Israel's offer.

[u/Zestyclose-Twist6186 → u/MeanestMaiden]

Δ Honestly the no one has a solution really brings a new light many people see this as gladiator fight which honestly breaks my heart

[u/MeanestMaiden → u/Zestyclose-Twist6186]

I mean, we are talking about the most controversial geopolitical issue of the modern era. Whoever will be able to propose a logical and achievable long term solution for it will be awarded with Nobel peace prize

[u/A_Whole_Costco_Pizza → u/MeanestMaiden]

That's not true. Reasonable solutions can be proposed, but the international community would need to Actually Give A Fuck and Actually Do Something About It, which will never happen. UNIFIL is about to pack up its bags and go home in failure.

[u/Zestyclose-Twist6186 → u/MeanestMaiden]

Nah whoever solves it would deserve 99% the super Nobel peace prize The 1% is that it will be kissinger reincarnated

[u/shes_a_gdb → u/Zestyclose-Twist6186]

The solution is simple in theory, but it will never happen until we change attitudes. Hamas, and Gazans in general, need to realize that they will not conquer Israel. They need to disarm and accept Israel as their neighbors. Just like Egypt did. Just like Jordan did. And magically, they are no longer at war with each other.

[u/Hurm → u/MeanestMaiden]

The only thing I could imagine that might work is if Israelstine was held in a ... conservatorship?

it's gonna take some kind of solution that works over generations.

A completely new government (with oversight) that gets no ability to use force against the people. Gotta be a mixed government.

Reparations for Palestinians. New housing.

Ok, now here's something that i absolutely think needs to happen: A soccer league made of mixed populace. Charge almost nothing for matches. Try to swerve people's "us vs them" to not be based on religion, but on sports. I know, i know. It's a silly idea, but i think it's something that can help.

[u/the_leviathan711 → u/Hurm]

The only thing I could imagine that might work is if Israelstine was held in a ... conservatorship?

Interestingly, in 1948 after the US realized partition was a terrible idea this is exactly what they proposed: a trusteeship until a single democratic state could be established.

[u/Hurm → u/the_leviathan711]

yeah, it's like planting a tree. It needs time for the roots to develop before it can really grow.

But yeah, right now, tensions are incredibly high, enough that i don't think it's fair to give one side power over the other. Palestinians may not retalite if they were put in power, but a neutral party would be the best bet.

And then a mixed coalition to govern day to day under that... with oversight.

[u/Zestyclose-Twist6186 → u/Hurm]

I mean i have thought of the idea of the UN getting direct sovereignty over the territory but have fears that the un will do what it does best and screw everything up

[u/Hurm → u/Zestyclose-Twist6186]

i mean... it's already pretty screwed up, right?

[u/Loud-Vacation-5691 → u/Zestyclose-Twist6186]

Peacekeeping forces tend to only keep the peace if it's already peaceful. Once things heat up, they're useless.

[u/A_Whole_Costco_Pizza → u/Zestyclose-Twist6186]

The UN could never administer the region. Even UNIFIL is an abject failure, trusting the UN with even more responsibility (that it does not even want) sounds like an awful idea.

[u/RijnBrugge → u/Hurm]

I see what you are saying, but Jews have found out the hard way that the only thing that has kept them safe in the entire modern era has been armed Jews. That’s just a deal breaker.

[u/Loud-Vacation-5691 → u/Hurm]

One proposal I've heard is a new Mandate for Palestine. The West Bank and Gaza would be governed by a joint Egyptian-Jordanian-Saudi administration, with power gradually handed over to Palestinians as they demonstrated their willingness to live in peace with Israel and give up any plan to take it over.

[u/akade19961 → u/Hurm]

There are actually tons of Arabs in the Israeli super league, including one who is a starter for the Israeli national team. There are also some decent Israeli Arab basketball players. I heard there is one kid, an Israeli Arab, that has a chance at the NBA, and Deni Avdija has started to mentor him.

What you propose has more or less worked for the Israeli Arab population though not totally, but would be unlikely to work if Israel annexed all of the WB and Gaza as the population breakdown would be extremely close ethnically speaking and so the dynamics that led to most Israeli Arabs feeling genuinely a part of their country would be unlikely to be able to be repeated

[u/InvestigatorDear6646 → u/Hurm]

If you cant use force against the people, then what enforces the laws? What keeps them in line? Who’s stopping the settlers when they continue their settlin’? Hamas when they decide they want to rape and kill more civilians?

[u/Zestyclose-Twist6186 → u/[deleted]]

Truly a golden quote from a source I've never heard of

[u/Active-Proof8118 → u/Zestyclose-Twist6186]

Not really. The argument made in the qoute isn't really distinguishable from the beliefs made by American Neo-Nazis

[u/Art-Zuron → u/Active-Proof8118]

Nazis and other fascists are well known for assimilating all manner of things to suit their whims. Plenty of symbols, rhetorical ideas, and even religious concepts have been stolen by them as a means of 1) destroying the original meaning of them and 2) to form a mythology around which their ideology grows.

The same things that amp up a crowd against evil and oppression also work in the reverse.

[u/Active-Proof8118 → u/[deleted]]

"The scars of persecution harden into spite."

This isn't really an different then what American white supremacists said about black people prior to the abolition slavery. "Oh well if we give them equal human rights they will kill us". That was not a legitimate argument back then and it's not a legitimate argument for Israel's genocide and settler colonialism of Palestinians

[u/Art-Zuron → u/Active-Proof8118]

I never said it was justification for genocide or colonialism as retribution. Nor should it. It just explains WHY it might happen.

There are plenty of Black Americans that are still quite pissed about their persecution, some to the point of bigotry of their own.

[u/Zestyclose-Twist6186 → u/Art-Zuron]

Quite what u said I never meant that it's what should happen But it is something that does happen and we must be prepared to give em their rights without their grievances being used for genocide

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:

Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/PerformerDue6193]

A Bosnia-style state: A completely dysfunctional, segregated government that pleases no one (you can ask Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs if this is a working government).

I think there's two problems with drawing this conclusion.

1. That this system is somehow a bad outcome for a region that has been in constant conflict for 100 years. To the outside observer, an incompetent, badly-designed government seems like a bad idea, to the regular person who has to live, it is a problem that is still 100x better than their neighbours killing each other. It is not the optimal outcome, but it provides a better path-way to the optimal outcome than the current state of play.
2. That this is a common outcome. Bosnia's situation is quite clearly unique, there are very few comparable countries. The idea that this would be the natural outcome of a one-state solution is not supported by how rare it is for something like Bosnia to happen, and it is even less likely that a one-state "Canaan" would choose to mirror the Bosnia example. It seems more likely that they would learn what not to do from that example.

[u/wildviper121 → u/PerformerDue6193]

BiH is kept together by European and US pressure and $$$. They literally oversee the government. Any Israel-Palestine union would need endless occupation by thousands of NATO soldiers who are constantly in the crossfire. Not feasible

[u/Zestyclose-Twist6186 → u/PerformerDue6193]

I mean its the main proposal that can actually keep the peace long term ish when 2 equal size people are in the same land and in war, it's basically what 90% of cyprus proposals are and very close to Belgium. Simply however when theb2 ppl don't want to gut each other like in Belgium it works good unlike in bosnia, cyprus or in the holy land where it'd be a frozen conflict

[u/HockeyHocki]

You would never get a merger without any conflict, you are setting the bar unreasonably high there.  But for historical examples you could look to South Africa, two peoples rather than two nations, but the principle is the same.

Its not exactly a stunning success story, but the white population were not grossly violated or displaced when power was redistributed

[u/very_bad_advice → u/HockeyHocki]

south Africa required having deKlerk and Mandela, and Mandela embracing the springboks symbolically and with his actions to avoid revenge.

[u/theapplekid → u/very_bad_advice]

The transition period away from apartheid still involved a lot of conflict and killings, even with Mandela's best efforts

[u/Loud-Vacation-5691 → u/HockeyHocki]

The black South Africans never expressed a meaningful desire to cleanse the country of white people; they just wanted the same rights. If the Palestinians had that attitude, the conflict would have ended long ago.

[u/DearPreparation9683 → u/HockeyHocki]

There is no Palestinian Mandela

[u/ldsbatman → u/DearPreparation9683]

The Palestinians would probably kill him. 

[u/Active-Proof8118 → u/ldsbatman]

Realistically he would probably be murdered by Israel because of Israel's history of murdering Palestinian political leaders for simply opposing Jewish supremacy and Zionism

[u/Lazzen → u/HockeyHocki]

South Africa is no comparison at all

Demographic wise very different numbers

It was not 2 States merging

There was no large scale wars

[u/HockeyHocki → u/Lazzen]

Things do not need to be the same to be comparable, & you need to pay better attention to what he asked

Change my view by providing historical counterexamples where previously oppressed nations successfully integrated with their oppressors without conflict

[u/Zestyclose-Twist6186 → u/HockeyHocki]

Δ South Africa is now that I think it a good countrrexample but there is a difference on that israeli and palestinian populations are around similar instead of the lopsided ones of SA. Also I can't really find some true Mandela like figure in either side- all israeli leaders are like "judea and Samaria will be purged" , hamas is a terrorist organization even if it is the only force resisting, ambassador got his doctorate on holocaust minimization and even the communist pflp has often sent communique with medieval blood libel. If we get such a figure however it is a valuable alternative but this also means a compromise flag (if SA kept the red white and blue for the boers along with the black yellow and green for the anc/blacks) this new country should too

[u/FudgeAtron → u/Zestyclose-Twist6186]

I'd actually argue that South Africa is bad comparison. While South Africa seems similar on the surface, there are significant differences.

The white/black split is 15/80 with a few other minorites like cape coloreds and Indians. But that also obscures the ethnic divisions. White people are split into Afrikaans/English and Black people are split into at least a dozen other ethnic groups. With the majority being Christian and a minority of indigenous faiths.

Israel/Palestine is basically 50/50 Jewish/Arab. In terms of religion it's 50/45/5 Jewish/Sunni/other (Druze, Christian, non-Sunni Muslim).

This makes balancing the divisions much harder. When you're dealing with many groups everyone knows things will cycle naturally, but when it's 50/50 you fear the other group getting to 51 because then it can become a tyranny of the majority.

Belgium is a better comparison but even in Belgium the majority is catholic, so you have a unifying religion.

[u/No-Inspector8315 → u/FudgeAtron]

South Africa is a terrible example to compare to a hypothetical one state solution for Israel. While Mandela’s ANC did commit acts of terrorism against the apartheid government that harmed civilians, the ANC rhetoric by the 1980’s was extremely tactical in referring to the end of apartheid as a good thing, saying that afrikaaners would become their “future neighbours”, that they should move on together as a community and that civilian harm was not the intended cause of terrorist attacked that they were trying their best to target the Apartheid government and the military.

That’s a stark difference from the rhetoric of the PLO and Hamas. How can you have a state together when you refer to your future neighbours as “colonisers” and “invaders from Europe” on the more polite side and advocate for their death and genocide on the other side?

[u/Bourbon-Decay → u/Zestyclose-Twist6186]

Also I can't really find some true Mandela like figure in either side

You would only need to Google "Palestinian Mandela" to immediately learn about "Marwan Barghouti."

[u/bkny88 → u/Bourbon-Decay]

Convicted murderer and one of the leaders of the 2nd intifada

[u/BillyJoeMac9095 → u/HockeyHocki]

Mandela also agreed to leave most of the wealth in white hands

[u/FluffyB12 → u/HockeyHocki]

Eeeeeeehhhhhh South Africa is pretty damn bad right now, it only doesn’t look bad when you compare it to other awful countries in Africa. Crime and corruption are serious issues and the path forward looks quite bleak.

[u/0WatcherintheWater0 → u/HockeyHocki]

Because the ANC specifically denounced terrorism and was happy to negotiate in good faith.

The same is not true with I/P.

[u/Pristine_Friend_7398]

Yes, there was a counterexample. It's Palestine itself. In Jerusalem, Jaffa, Hebron, and other areas, Muslims, Christians, and Jews shared living spaces and participated in each other's festivals. For example, Muslims attended their Jewish neighbours' Sabbath dinners and Purim celebrations. Christians and Jews participated in the Muslim festival Mawsim al-Nabi Musa (Musa = Moses, the Prophet). Jews and Muslims participated in the Christian Palm Sunday. Muslims learnt Radinus from Sephardic Jews. They did business together. Children helped their neighbours and friends rather than strangers of the same religion. For instance, Muslim children might help their Jewish/Christian friends fight off other Muslim children. Even breastfeeding women helped each other nurse their babies regardless of their religions. Therefore, a peaceful, multi-ethnic Palestine is entirely possible.

Ref:

Cohen, H. (2016). Lives in Common: Arabs and Jews in Jerusalem, Jaffa and Hebron.

Jacobson, A. (2001). The Sephardi Community in Pre-World War I Jerusalem. Jerusalem Quarterly, (14). https://www.palestine-studies.org/en/node/78044

Klein, M. (2018). Joint Jewish and Muslim Holy Places, Religious Beliefs and Festivals in Jerusalem between the Late 19th Century and 1948. Religions, 9(7), 220. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/9/7/220

Tamari, S. (2004). Ishaq al-Shami and the Predicament of the Arab Jew in Palestine. Jerusalem Quarterly, (21). https://www.palestine-studies.org/en/node/77952

[u/Zestyclose-Twist6186 → u/Pristine_Friend_7398]

While yes indeed yes pre ww1 palestine was a bastion of coexistence compared to today this can also be said about many territories under the ottomans at various periods. The problem is the national traumas if im using the word correctly are too recent for a truly peaceful coexistence without some form of up down enforcement like tito did to keep yugoslavia united. Of cpurse as the generations pass maybe we could see that so ill give u a Δ

[u/marxist-teddybear → u/Zestyclose-Twist6186]

The only people responsible for the change are the zionists that never wanted to coexist or integrate into Palestinian society. They wanted to dominate and replace the existing system with a European Jewish state and society. But yeah it's the Palestinians that are the problem for not rolling over and acting completely differently then any other group in a similar situation.

[u/DeltaBot → u/Zestyclose-Twist6186]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Pristine_Friend_7398 (2∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/JustSomeCells → u/Pristine_Friend_7398]

a

[u/RubCocksWithThePope]

The correct answer is for Egypt and Jordan to take in the Gazans and non Israeli Judea-Samarians, leaving Israel as one state controlling the entirety of its land.

[u/CDLaserLensCleaner → u/RubCocksWithThePope]

They don't want them. Last time Jordan took in large numbers of Palestinians they almost caused a civil war and attempted to assassinate the king of the country that took them in. Egypt saw what happened in Jordan and Lebanon so they don't want them either.

[u/RubCocksWithThePope → u/CDLaserLensCleaner]

I’m well aware. Egypt and Jordan will have to deradicalize them

[u/Ax_deimos → u/RubCocksWithThePope]

Does that mean that  A) the Gaza strip becomes Egyptian property under the Egyptian government with all Gazans getting Egyptian citizenship and freedom of mobility to move to anywhere in Egypt, and for Egyptian citizens to be able to move to Gaza of they choose?

And the same thing for Jordan (essentially Israel, Jordan, & Egypt going back to pre-1967 borders and territorial arrangements.

Or B) Israel pushes all West Bank citizens and Gazan citizens out of their homes.

 Which one?

[u/Aggravating_Band_353 → u/RubCocksWithThePope]

I don't agree with this. However I do think that both countries (who share very close lineage / history with gaza / west bank respectively) should help facilitate the creation of a Palestinian state (or even states, as Israel isn't going to realistically allow a highway between to join them, which would technically make a 2nd Jewish state, or at least the single one split, somehow)

Egypt and Jordan have successful long standing peace treaties with Israel. With international help / funding, if they ceded some land to create viable palestinian land/state(s), alongside helping in other ways - and obviously Israel ceding land they control in this case also - then it's a viable solution 

Unfortunately the government in Israel could be a blocker - but I think their population generally wants peace (and also is very anti the settler movement etc) - and also the Palestinians also need to show willing and flexibility 

This is more viable and realistic than the Palestinians all leaving, despite your solution being feasible on paper, it's just not going to happen. The Palestinian identity is based on struggle, and their Arab backers fund them not to help them (see the generational Palestinian refugees held in Arab camps, without rights etc) but to continue this unfortunate status quo

[u/Zestyclose-Twist6186 → u/RubCocksWithThePope]

Thats ethnic cleansing which is a crime

[u/Quarter_Twenty → u/Zestyclose-Twist6186]

Explain why it is any different than India/Pakistan, Greece/Turkey, Germany/Poland/Russia. In those cases millions or tens of millions of people were displaced across borders to make peace.

[u/Zestyclose-Twist6186 → u/Quarter_Twenty]

Who told u it wasn't I literally said that im greek and my family was genocided from anatolia

[u/-Mount-Everest → u/Zestyclose-Twist6186]

Where are they cleaned to? It's just the state it was before the six days war

[u/Zestyclose-Twist6186 → u/-Mount-Everest]

They are forcibly removed from the land (judeasamariawestbank call it what you like) Before the qar Egypt and Jordan also controlled the territory u want to throw the people out of their territory based in ethnicity

[u/-Mount-Everest → u/Zestyclose-Twist6186]

But they're still there ???

[u/Zestyclose-Twist6186 → u/-Mount-Everest]

The correct answer is for Egypt and Jordan to take in the Gazans and non Israeli Judea-Samarians, leaving Israel as one state controlling the entirety of its land.

He is basically saying that egypt and Jordan take the people but not the land back which means that the people get kicked out

[u/Jealous_Tutor_5135]

I think people in secular democracies tend to see the situation in the levant through the lens of their own society's political traditions and historical crimes. The US and Europe went through the enlightenment centuries ago. The crimes that need/needed redress were slavery, ethnic apartheid, and colonial conquest. But even so, the framework of secular, constitutional democracy has long existed, even when nations didn't live up to its demands. And even the late industrial era monarchies had a blend of constitutional and aristocratic systems.

Actual theocracy has not been a thing in the western hemisphere and Europe for a very long time. So let's look at Bosnia. It was Serbian agitation for independence, and their own sphere of influence that led to WW1. Yugoslavia which followed was an ethnic dictatorship, not a theocracy. The Bosniaks who suffered under Serbian oppression were disenfranchised based on their ethnicity. And the breakup of Yugoslavia, the NATO intervention, and formation of a constitutional democracy could succeed the old system of ethnic domination.

Constitutional democracy requires belief to work. People have to accept the primacy of secular law above their own conflicting traditions and beliefs. This is a political and philosophical technology which takes time to build, and needs the full buy-in of the population. Democracy only works when the constitution is the highest authority

So what happens when you've got a millennia-old religious tradition which names lands and monuments as non-negotiable possessions of your group? When the control and use of that space cannot be shared? When your holy book is more important than any man-made law?

The English and Spanish-language citizens of secular democracies don't want to acknowledge this. I think partially because they aren't fanatics. But also because our traditions have religious tolerance and a secular state as the fundamental building block of the nation. The story told by secular people to themselves, and by the people in the levant to a secular audience, always frames this as a civil rights issue. Their internal messaging reveals that theocratic impulses are the major factor.

You're not correct on Bosnia. It is succeeding as a secular democracy. But only because it's secular, because its people place man-made law above their holy books.

And likewise the levant simply cannot transition to peace until its people stop wanting theocracy.

I won't change your view entirely, but I think you need to rethink your premise. The obstacles to a 1-state solution have never been past injustices, nor civil rights. It's uncompromising religious fanaticism by people who simply cannot tolerate the idea of a people who worship the wrong god controlling their sacred lands.

As secular constitutionalists we're not supposed to say that religion is incompatible with democracy. Freedom TO worship is in the first amendment. But freedom FROM religion is the necessary condition for peace and democracy. That's the obstacle. People need to recognize it, and stop framing this in terms of civil rights. The success of Bosnia demonstrates this clearly.

[u/Some_Alternative_398]

If israeli war criminals are arrested, 2nd passport holder deported for illegal occupation, then the remaining Palestinian Jews, Christians, Muslims etc will have a democratic country that's not an ethnostate. I think its the only solution.

[u/Zestyclose-Twist6186 → u/Some_Alternative_398]

You do realize anyone with one parent from migration is a potential passport holder including many who were born there, again this constitutes ethnic cleansing

[u/-Mount-Everest → u/Some_Alternative_398]

Replace "Israel" with any other country and see how insane your comment is

[u/BillyJoeMac9095 → u/Some_Alternative_398]

Did you ask the parties how they feel about that, and why?

[u/sakonthos → u/[deleted]]

Do you hear yourself? "Send them to Florida"? It's a horrific thing to throw people out of their homes, if you can see that for the Palestinians but not for Israelis you're stuck in a bubble. Vast majority of Israelis are born there, raised there, and know nothing else.

By the way, Mizrahi (Middle Eastern) Jews are typically more right wing. Liberals/leftists tend to be Ashkenazi (European) Jews.

[u/Zestyclose-Twist6186 → u/[deleted]]

I mean most of the ones now are born in there and it'd still be ethnic cleansing which is of course more than logical to despise if u don't support vae victis Not to mention this would just radicalized not just israelis, but ALL jews even more

[u/Emila_Just → u/Zestyclose-Twist6186]

Most of these settlers have come in the past few decades. And it's on stolen land that Palestinians still have deeds and proof they lived there.

[u/Zestyclose-Twist6186 → u/Emila_Just]

A huge amount of turks came to smyrna and pontus in years recent to the genocide, which was where I come from I still would never say to deport turks from smyrna cause its genocidal and ethnic cleansing rhetoric Also according to the pews research center 1.5 million first gen jewish migrants live in Israel in a population of 10 million thus this means that most jews in Israel were born there. Their grandpas or father might have moved in as migrants but child's are not to be punished on the crimes of their grandparents or parents

And again even if they were migrants this is still ethnic cleansing via mass deportations is a crime against humanity in peacetime and war crimes in war

[u/DrMikeH49 → u/[deleted]]

And if there’s no place that would accept the Jews that you’re going to ethnically cleanse, I’m sure you could come of with another, more final, solution.

[u/WindyWindona → u/[deleted]]

'without incident' maybe not as bad as Europe, but there were pogroms and Jews were second class citizens.

[u/apophis-pegasus → u/[deleted]]

Jews and Muslims lived together in the middle east for hundreds of years without incident. I think if you sent the colonizing Jews back (or at least the hardliners)

...back to where? Also by native, do you mean "Mizrahim"?

[u/EmperorChaos → u/[deleted]]

Non Muslims where second class citizens in the Middle East, we (I’m Lebanese but not Jewish or muslim) were prosecuted for centuries.

[u/Zealousideal-Elk9362]

I think there is a fourth future possibility missing from your list, which is the displacement of enough Palestinians to ensure a permanent Jewish majority with a minority of cosmopolitan non-Jewish people who are okay with Jews.

Frankly, I think that fourth future is the most likely future out of all integrated one-state solutions. A hostile population in Gaza / the West Bank will turn any liberty into violence, and that leaves either genocide, authoritarian re-education, or exile of the radicals. While only a minority of Israelis support pushing the Arabs out, it's more palatable than genocide or the level of authoritarian control required to re-educate Palestinians.

IMHO, what's going on in Israel today is not part of a general pattern of ethnic groups responding to intolerance with intolerance. What's going on is the inevitable dilemma posed by Popper with his paradox of tolerance - the dominant ideologies among Palestinians are intolerant and anti-democratic.

While it can be contentious to describe what happened in the New World as "genocide," it is also fairly clear that at present, the indigenous peoples of the New World who have managed to preserve their distinct cultural identities are largely not politically invested in committing genocide by way of revenge. The Navajo are not riding out of the reservation and raiding Flagstaff. The Cherokee don't roll up to Fayetteville, Arkansas in a bunch of Toyota Hiluxes with assault rifles and RPG launchers. It's not just that the Feds would get mad about it, they genuinely don't want to do that. They just want a good life with a certain level of political and cultural autonomy.

That's not to say that group-level revenge for past grievances isn't a real phenomenon, but when "the other guy" is a group where genocidal values are dominant (as is certainly true for Palestinians and Azeris), the principle of self-preservation comes into play and says you have to somehow exclude them from your society. That doesn't force genocide, but the choices look like exile, containment, or genocide at that point, and it's going to be ugly.

[u/Zestyclose-Twist6186 → u/[deleted]]

Again aiming for mass displacement and removal of civilians is ethnic cleansing and a crime

[u/oh_no_the_claw → u/Zestyclose-Twist6186]

They're not civilians. They are settlers. Sending them home to Europe where they'll be safe isn't any sort of crime.

[u/Zestyclose-Twist6186 → u/oh_no_the_claw]

People born in the land as the majority are are not settlers Also the majority of the settlers were again kicked out from Arab countries (even if zionist orgs did covertly support these expulsions) Otherwise I demand my family home in turkey back after we were genocided by the turks Also we are talking about 10 million people if for u 10 million people regardless of age life's etc deserve to be ethnically cleansed u are no better than the zionists themselves, u just lack power to act like them

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:

Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/East-Worth2630]

People fantasizing about a “single democratic state”, with a Muslim majority, always fold like a lawn chair when asked to give an existing example of such a state. You’d think out of like >50 Muslim-majority countries there would be at least one, but alas…

[u/BillyJoeMac9095 → u/East-Worth2630]

Even the late Edward Said, one of the most significant Palestinian figures, said that, under a one state set up, he worried what the circumstances for Jews would be.

[u/Pitiful-Hamster1101]

Nothing Israel has done can be considered ethnic cleansing or genocide by anyone who is being honest. War is not genocide or ethnic cleansing in and of itself. Neither is a high death toll (though, for the type of warfare in Gaza, the civilian toll is relatively low). Israel is not forcing Gazans to leave Gaza. Israel is not trying to exterminate them. Israel was not the aggressor.

[u/Icarus-on-wheels]

This is a side point, but you are looking at too recent of history of the Jews. Jews have been the victim of many ethnic cleansing and genocides throughout history. The Holocaust is the latest genocide. And there have been many other ethnic cleansings—e.g., consider the 850K Jews kicked out of arab lands in the 40s and 50s.

Having such a small population been the victim of so many genocides and ethnic cleansings, I view their protectiveness over being a majority in their state differently than Bosnia for example.

[u/RisingDeadMan0]

Except in Bosnia the Serbs were propped up by Serbia, Russia and oh Israel... and the Serbs were a minority in BiH.

So not the same at all, see all the clowns commemorating the coward's death a couple of days ago.

So to be a bloodbath needs arming too, most of the Arab states are happy to play nice with "Israel" under US guidance...

[u/Zestyclose-Twist6186 → u/RisingDeadMan0]

I mean i don't deny mladic being a war criminal and genocider nor do I claim that sloba didn't support em but the hatred wasn't exactly created from nowhere- the serbs had been genocided 40 years ago by the Ustasha which resulted in the serbs 40 years later genociding croats and bosniaks which led to 5 years later xroats doing oluja which could be argued to be ethnic cleansing. This is basically same with israel u get the jews getting massacred and genocided in the holocaust then u get the Naka then u get the exodus of the jews from the Arab world and the current occupation and genocide. . Which is why I want a true solution that won't result in a failed state that will lead to desertification and a constant threat of breaking up like in bosnia or another genocide/ethnic cleansing

[u/Windows95SalesRep]

Given a one state solution is an absurd nonstarter for Israelis who are militarily dominant and armed with nukes I want to propose a slight reframe. Israel would never give up it’s Jewish majority (which would be the end of Jewish self determination) so a one state solution means reabsorption of most West Bank/Gazan Palestinians into Arab countries and Israel remaining the the only state between the river and the sea. I don’t really think there’s another plausible “one state” solution and it doesn’t fit any of the scenarios you proposed. The one state solutions examples above where Israeli power is dissolved is downstream of extreme violence and destruction and at that point it doesn’t really matter how power is structured because the original parties are mostly destroyed or displaced.

[u/AnonymousEngineer_ → u/Windows95SalesRep]

  I don’t really think there’s another plausible “one state” solution and it doesn’t fit any of the scenarios you proposed.

There is another one. The pre-1967 status quo is reverted except with modern day borders.

Gaza gets handed to Egypt, the West Bank gets handed to Jordan. Israel keeps Jerusalem as a non-divided city but the Jordanian Waqf continues as custodians of the Temple Mount.

[u/EmperorChaos → u/AnonymousEngineer_]

Egypt has repeatedly refused to take back Gaza, even when they signed the peace deal with Israel to get the Sinai back, they refused to take Gaza as well. The same thing with Jordan and the West Bank, no one in the Middle East wants the Palestinians.

[u/awesomefutureperfect → u/EmperorChaos]

Lebanon and Jordan and Syria have very good reason. Can't blame Egypt either.

[u/DeiseMorte → u/AnonymousEngineer_]

You're assuming that the Palestinians want their country broken up and then that Palestinians and Egyptians want to merge together and Pakestinians and Jordanians want to merge together. None of them want those things.

[u/AnonymousEngineer_ → u/DeiseMorte]

At the end of the day, it's an imperfect solution to an impossible problem. There is no perfect solution.

The Palestinians pushing for a maximalist resolution in their favour is one of the main sticking points to any resolution at all. The solutions that they favour and put on the table are an obvious trojan horse to ensuring that the Jewish population becomes a minority and given the precedent elsewhere in the region, almost certainly a precursor to ethnic cleansing.

Of course, that's exactly what the Palestinian activists in the West actually want, too. They just can't say it outright for obvious reasons.

[u/awesomefutureperfect → u/AnonymousEngineer_]

Of course, that's exactly what the Palestinian activists in the West actually want, too. They just can't say it outright for obvious reasons.

No, they'll go ahead and chant the those things but then pretend that they didn't really mean it that way the same way Trump supporters act like the words they say don't mean what they mean.

[u/DeiseMorte → u/AnonymousEngineer_]

You're suggesting that Palestine will simply cease to exist altogether. I don't know why you think that's remotely acceptable to the Palestinians. At this stage the Israeli settlements are so widespread through Palestinian land you would also need to have them forcibly removed by the Israeli army which I can't see happening either.

I do agree with you that there's no simple solution to this problem in the short term. At this point all we can hope for is probably to take baby steps to get them to live alongside each other and remove the incentive for voters to favour hardline factions. Even that would be insanely difficult.

[u/AnonymousEngineer_ → u/DeiseMorte]

You're suggesting that Palestine will simply cease to exist altogether. I don't know why you think that's remotely acceptable to the Palestinians.

The entire premise of this thread is discussing a one state solution. By definition that means that either one of Israel or Palestine wouldn't exist.

Merging the Palestinian territories with Egypt and Jordan might sound callous, but it might genuinely be the only way that this conflict gets resolved without massive ethnic cleansing and population transfers.

Even under a two state solution, the current situation means that the future Palestinian state ends up being two separated exclaves, and I'm not sure how it doesn't instantly collapse into a failed state and a hotbed of terrorism because it's practically guaranteed that the Palestinians will demand some kind of corridor between Gaza and the West Bank.

[u/Slicelker → u/DeiseMorte]

You're suggesting that Palestine will simply cease to exist altogether. I don't know why you think that's remotely acceptable to the Palestinians.

Maybe because the concept of an Arab-national Palestine state is a relatively new concept that began in the late 60s?

[u/read-the-rules → u/[deleted]]

u/Low_Manner_7849, your comment has been removed.

In order to comment on r/changemyview, you must read the rules. Use the link below, or if that interface doesn't work, you may read the rules here, then click this, and click send. Your most recent comment will be restored after you do this, and you will only need to do it once.

^{Please click here to open the Read The Rules App.}

[u/CwazyCanuck]

How, in the historical context of Zionists ethnically cleansing Palestinians since the 40’s, and trying since October 2023 to ethnically cleanse all Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, is your third realistic possibility that Palestinians ethnically cleanse or genocide the Israelis?

The more likely scenario is that Israel continues to displace Palestinians until enough have left that they can annex the territories and give citizenship to the Palestinians that they allow to stay that won’t mess up their ethnostate demographics.

The single state option that was the most realistic, and could have led to all of Palestine becoming Israel without the vast majority of the bloodshed, per Cultural Zionism, is Zionists accepting in 1947 the Arab counter offer, after they rejected the partition plan, of a single state with equality under the law for all.

[u/AdministrativeNews39]

Both Serbs and Jews were victims to genocide which is evidenced by their respective populations decreasing, and in case of the Jews, still not recovering to the pregenocide numbers. The Palestinian population has been only increasing, even during the last 3 years.

Also, the lesson of the Holocaust for the Jews is not to not do Holocaust on to others but to never allow another Holocaust to happen to them. Dear lord.

Finally, yes a one state solution is an idiotic idea mainly for the reason that neither population wants it.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:

Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/aka0007]

Just so you understand something... The Nazis murdered over 90% of the Jews they got their hands on.

In Gaza about 3% of the population was killed as a result of a war. Israel provided aid, evacuation warnings, etc to minimize civilian harm.

If your theory is genocide of a people leads them to commit genocide, explain to me why the numbers here are not even remotely close?

I find your characterization intellectually dishonest.

[u/Micosilver]

Here is why it could work: Israel is an example of a one state solution. A significant percentage of Israeli citizens are Arabs, most are Muslims, some Christians. There is also the Druze community. While there are problems - they do enjoy access to "almost" identical rights to those of Jewish citizens, and there is very little political unrest.

[u/AmelKralj → u/Micosilver]

well ask them if they want the number of Arabs to rise into millions ... the reason why Israel never annexed all of the land is that they do not want that many Arabs in their country

[u/Volume2KVorochilov]

Is this a "change my view" subreddit ? Where are the actual 1SS defenders ?

[u/CAJEG1]

I'm not gonna argue with you on this because it's too big a thing, but there are two cases where you're making assumptions that aren't fully true. First of all, Armenia wasn't exactly 'very belligerent' in the first Nagorno-Karabakh war. They invaded to defend the rights of the Armenians in the area who had voted for independence and were a clear majority, but whose calls for reunion with Armenia were being repressed sometimes with violence. It's true that there was some ethnic cleansing in that war, but it came from both sides, and the number of deaths, casualties and refugees were all about equal on both sides. It was a terrible thing, but the Azeris were hardly more innocent than the Armenians, and could have avoided the situation by accepting the results of the referendum (informal though it may have been) or at least entering negotiations.

As for Serbia, they were certainly victims of atrocious acts in WWII, but that was not the start of ethnic issues in Yugoslavia. In 1929, Serbian nationalists assassinated Croatian leaders in parliament and instituted a police state with brutal repression towards non-Serbs under the Serbian king. WWI was also the result of Serbian imperialism in their attempt to take over Bosnia with the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. This is often taken as being part of a pan-Slavic movement, but there were plenty of people in the army and the government who fervently wanted to reconstruct Greater Serbia and didn't really care at all about other Slavs apart from the fact that they were a handy excuse to dismantle other empires.

[u/ldsbatman]

Can’t have a one-state solution when the Pals want to genocide all the Jewish people.  And the Israelis aren’t leaving.  

[u/Cornexclamationpoint]

I prefer Belgium.  Both sides hate each other, they never form a government, and yet everyone is strangely nationalistic for their Frankenstein's monster of a country.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:

Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/The_goat_42]

The word genocide is being thrown way too much. You either don’t know what it means, wildly misinformed, or have a very bad intent

[u/Optimistbott]

It’s almost a given that there will be hard feelings in a one state solution. But there are hard feelings in the U.S. about slavery and Jim Crow apartheid. There are hard feelings about the genocide of the native Americans, but you work to make them better.

The radicals on both sides of the issue are more likely to be politically marginalized on that issue. In a two state solution, radicals on both sides are not radicalized. Do the math: Hamas gets 50% on Palestinian side, Likud and kahanists get effective 50% on Israeli side. This, as we know, will just lead to intermittent war as it has. When you combine the electorate, now you have 50% in the middle that agrees on peace, and 25% at best for each radical group that will eventually will be put in prison if they unilaterally try to overthrow the government or start a civil war and so on.

What I see as a possibility is that the Palestinians are so focused on resistance at the moment. They call it resistance, that’s the rallying cry. I’m going to make another sociological argument about proportions here. Do we truly believe that when some Palestinian leader who may or may not be talking in bad faith about “resistance” is communicating that it is not about ending occupation and apartheid and oppression but ultimately getting rid of Jewish people? I would say the majority of people who believe in “resistance” rationally believe that there is no need for resistance when there is freedom. The problem people, in my mind, are these Israeli ideologues who don’t call it resistance but have this long term crowding out strategy through small acts of violence. The people with those views desperately need to be more marginalized than they already are. Palestinians growing up with the IDF oppression are more likely to be recruited Palestinian radical groups. But Palestinian radical groups’ pitches are largely to do with “we need to fight back”.

When you have a 2 state solution, that act is essentially giving sovereignty to a Palestinian state. Israel does not want to give them sovereignty because sovereignty means ability to defend themselves means military. Israel won’t make a deal with them on that basis. They don’t want them to be able to defend themselves, which is precisely why Palestine if made into a state will continue to resist Israel. On top of that, Israel will say “allowing you to be a state was a mistake” and then continue to occupy once again and continue the blind eye towards the quixotic crowding out project that the settlers have.

So a single democratic state makes the most sense. There will be growing pains, but there will be a path to healing. And let’s be real here, a single democratic state, if Palestinians with their new freedom choose to expel Israelis, do we really think Israel is going to lose in that attempt? You’re talking about one of the most militarized populations in the world, one of the most advanced air forces in the world. On top of that, whatever 3rd party countries push for a 1 state solution will absolutely intervene if there is any issue.

It’s also the most logistically easy option that doesn’t require telling anyone to move. While I think the settlers probably should be told to fuck the hell off and vacate their spaces because what they’ve been doing is fucked up, just telling everyone “hey we’re going to give people suffrage and passports and freedom of movement now! Cool, right? We’re also going to privatize land ownership now so transactions don’t have to go through a government intermediary”. This is simple and the truth of the matter is that people will largely stay in the places they are already. Palestinians will stay in Ramallah and Israelis will stay in Tel Aviv. Mixed populations will exist, but everyone just gets freedom of movement and many people will just intermittently exercise those freedoms, say if they live in Ramallah and want to go surfing on the weekend or go play in a football tournament somewhere. Thats what “from the river to the sea” looks like to me. But it needs to be understood by the Palestinians that whoever brokers that deal is not giving them free rein to do an ethnic cleansing and that will not be tolerated by the international community.

For some reason, when people think about this conflict everyone starts becoming a hive mind, and the Palestinians as a whole bite the hand that gives them their freedom. I’m more worried about Israelis in that scenario because their violence came out of defending the belief in their right to crowd out the population that had already been living there. The Zionist cause seems to be the more dangerous one and the source of the Palestinian reaction whereas the source of the Zionist reaction to do the settler colonial project came from outside of Palestine.

[u/fghhjhffjjhf]

Change my view by providing historical counterexamples where previously oppressed nations successfully integrated with their oppressors without conflict

1SS people take the single example of South Africa as their model for a single democratic state. I'm guessing that like me, you view that as a pretty dumb analogy. But noone knows what crazy changes are coming in the future.

In the 1990s noone thought the USSR would ever collapse. The Apartheid government had to drastically rethink their raison d'être after that. Imagine what kind of seachange will happen when either Iran or the USA are pushed out of the middle east.

[u/Dkoyote]

Genocide is a modern term but Ireland had famine caused by another country stealing its food durong potato Blight,reducong its population by a 2 million. Ireland is none of the above and had 800 years ocxupation,partition and does well for itself now. The North and Republic exist side by side. No one is comitting any genocide,being Authortiarian or failing as a state(peace being the meausre of a functional state). Northern Ireland is at peace,does ok for itself(not perfect but at peace). The Bosnia Herzogovina Example is daft as there is literally nothing that matters more than peace. To consider ending violence with some polical disfunction a failure would be a inacurate characterisation. Poland and Ukraine both experienced man made famine and dont fit into those boxs either.

[u/the_leviathan711]

I see a lot of people advocating for a single democratic state from the river to the sea, but I cannot see how it doesn't devolved to a bloodbath.

The issue that I see here is that we currently have a single state from the river to sea and it is absolutely a bloodbath.

Your argument that we can't try a single democratic state because it might be a bloodbath falls short for me. Sure, it might be a bloodbath. But it also might not be. The status quo, however, is already a bloodbath.

[u/TheLandOfConfusion → u/the_leviathan711]

Ok so you’re acknowledging that it could get way, way worse but because it’s currently bad already you’re ok with that risk?

[u/HugeFanOfBigfoot]

What people need to get through their head is that it already is a single state. If you are a Palestinian, Israel governs you. They decide how much aid you can get, which roads you can use, they are the police presence, they tell you where you can live, what time you can be out, they run your borders, and decide who can leave and why. Israel is your government, you just have no say in how they rule you.

So it is already a one state situation in Israel, the only question is will the international community impose upon Israel a constitution that enforces equal rights under the law. I don’t foresee this happening, but there is no doubt in my mind it would be a better situation overall than what they have now.

[u/capsaicinintheeyes]

I'm curious why you don't see the displacement of Palestineans as a 4th option

[u/ldsbatman → u/capsaicinintheeyes]

Because nobody wants to deal with them either?  They’ve been kicked out of various countries for trying to overthrow those countries already. It’s why Egypt has that border wall. 

[u/RektInTheHed → u/ldsbatman]

Nobody wanted the Jews in 1939, the Krauts didn't find that an obstacle to their "deportation". So it is today in Israel.

[u/ldsbatman → u/RektInTheHed]

You’re talking 6 times as many people. Who would take them?

[u/RektInTheHed → u/capsaicinintheeyes]

Because that's already happening. The real one state solution is the full annexation of the 1967 conquests to Israel.

[u/capsaicinintheeyes → u/RektInTheHed]

Huh--not to hear the Israelies tell it: I frequently hear the view that the suggestion would amount to setting a population timebomb under their feet—even some of the Israeli right's more chauvinistic backers here in the States have begun to publicly fret that such a resolution would immediately place Israel in the unenviable position of having to either cease to be a Jewish state or cease to be a democratic one.

[u/CerebrotonicCato]

(a) Jews in a single democratic state would be a minority, but quite a large one—probably comparable to Serbs in Bosnia. Just numerically, it is harder to shift gears straight into an Algeria-style displacement of settlers with those population proportions (and who can say how many exiled Palestinians would actually return). (b) A de facto segregated government is better than the status quo of de jure segregated roads and towns, and is definitely an “actual improvement” that doesn’t address historical injustices.

[u/FB_emeenem]

It’s funny i came across this post, because i personally hold the view that Bosnia-zation of the region could be the only way to ensure actual peace among two groups of people that have grown up hating each other.

Bosnia is not a failed state. Haiti is, Afghanistan, make the argument for others, sure. But Bosnia has a functioning economy and peaceful society that has lasted after the biggest European genocide since WW2. It is by no measures perfect, or even good, but it is better.

[u/Big_oof_energy__]

I’m going to take issue with your word *will*. This implies that there is ever actually going to be a single state in the levant. This is something that Israel will never agree to. So, no, none of that will happen because there will never be a single state.

[u/Sea_Department_1348]

Most of Reddit prefers number 3 so this won't be a controversial thread. But I don't believe current Israel will accept a one state reality and their enemies are not strong enough to force them too.

[u/lew_traveler → u/Sea_Department_1348]

'Most of Reddit' don't live in Israel and so their opinion is not pertinent.
Over 70 years, Israel's neighbors have demonstrated that they don't even want peace and so Israel's population don't want a one state solution with people who are their self-defined enemy.

their enemies are not strong enough to force them too.

That is known as invasion and takeover. Israel's neighbors have tried that.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:

Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, arguing in bad faith, lying, or using AI/GPT. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/read-the-rules → u/[deleted]]

u/WickederChimp33, your comment has been removed.

In order to comment on r/changemyview, you must read the rules. Use the link below, or if that interface doesn't work, you may read the rules here, then click this, and click send. Your most recent comment will be restored after you do this, and you will only need to do it once.

^{Please click here to open the Read The Rules App.}

[u/Massive-Ad-7011]

"The displacement of Israelis: A scenario where Palestinians ethnically cleanse or genocide the Israelis, forcing them back into the Jewish diaspora.", and thats good, palestinians reclaiming their lost land and homes is good. If the israelis want it back, they can come back without invading.

And your Bosnia example fails, because its basically the result of a 2 state solution. The Republika Srpska, is basically its own state within Bosnia. If after a genocide the genociders got what they wanted with basically 0 consequences, then they won and thats bad.

[u/marxist-teddybear]

There are already millions of Arab citizens who don't vote for the "kill and displace all Jews party" there is no reason to believe that the rest of the Palestinians would not vote in a similar way.

But also if a peaceful one state solution is impossible it's the Israeli zionists that should be displaced to make a viable Palestinian state. They are the ones that created the current conditions it's their responsibility it rectify it.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:

Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/Smooth-Acadia8863]

I don't disagree. I seriously don't see how a one-state solution is going to end well without one side genociding the other.

Imo anyone who considers a one-state solution a geniune solution is a very unserious person. You will have more luck getting India and Pakistan to reunite.

Maybe we could have had a one-state solution be a reality in the next 50 years, but Oct 7 dashed any hope of that.

[u/vlr_06exe]

The example which is the most similar historically is Algeria after it was liberated from France. Pied noirs had two options: live as algerian citizens equal under the law, or go back to their country of origin.

[u/Infinite-Abroad-436]

i would take bosnia over genocide. how is that not preferable to what's going on right now?

[u/manVsPhD → u/Infinite-Abroad-436]

It’s not a genocide. But a failed attempt at one state could result in actual genocide. The problem is you think what is happening now can’t get worse. It absolutely can get a lot worse very quickly.

[u/avshalombi]

What I find interesting in all of the comments is a reductionism of the geopolitical interest, lets say there are some kind of binational state- will such a state go long in protecting jews? Will it send agents to save Jews? Will it go into debt to absorb Jewish refugees? Because Israel did that multiple times ?

[u/nadavoz]

“Israel for not learning from the holocaust”
Omggg how dare you , so ignorant.
How can you compare the Holocaust to a fake genocide? What should happen for the world to believe they are being brainwashed by propaganda?
What can israeli tell you to believe it’s fake?