Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Stoppelmann]

There is truth in saying that…

"The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."
—Abba Eban, 1973

"In 1947 the Palestinian Arabs and their allies rejected a U.N. proposal to partition Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state, just as 10 years before they had rejected a similar partitioning proposed by the Peel Commission. More recently, both at Camp David and at Taba, Arab negotiators rejected proposals that would have led to the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.
Apparently many Palestinian Arabs – and much of the Arab world – continue to think that they can do better than a two-state solution. After decades of conflict, it seems the Arabs have not given up their ultimate goal of making all of Palestine into an Arab state."

Herschel I. Grossman: For peace in the Middle East: A two-state solution?

There is also truth in the following:

History lies at the core of every conflict. A true and unbiased understanding of the past offers the possibility of peace. The distortion or manipulation of history, in contrast, will only sow disaster. As the example of the Israel–Palestine conflict shows, historical disinformation, even of the most recent past, can do tremendous harm. This willful misunderstanding of history can promote oppression and protect a regime of colonization and occupation. It is not surprising, therefore, that policies of disinformation and distortion continue to the present and play an important part in perpetuating the conflict, leaving very little hope for the future. Constructed fallacies about the past and the present in Israel and Palestine hinder us from understanding the origins of the conflict. Meanwhile, the constant manipulation of the relevant facts works against the interests of all those victimized by the ongoing bloodshed and violence. What is to be done? The Zionist historical account of how the disputed land became the state of Israel is based on a cluster of myths that subtly cast doubt on the Palestinians’ moral right to the land. Often, the Western mainstream media and political elites accept this set of myths as a given truth, as well as the justification for Israeli actions across the last sixty or so years. More often than not, the tacit acceptance of these myths serves as an explanation for Western governments’ disinclination to interfere in any meaningful way in a conflict that has been going on since the nation’s foundation.
Pappe, Ilan (2017-04-03T23:58:59.000). Ten Myths About Israel . Verso. Kindle Edition.

Ilan Pappe (Hebrew אילן פפה, occasionally Ilan Pappé or Ilan Papeh, * 1954 in Haifa) is an Israeli historian, author and professor at the University of Exeter. Pappe's work focuses on the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and he has written extensively on topics related to the conflict, Zionism, and the establishment of the State of Israel.

[Lagayascienza]

Israel is ultimately responsible for the deaths of those children. They didn't need to do all the bombing. It has gone beyond self-defense to become naked aggression. Israelis occupy Palestinian land, Israel herds Palestinians into the ghetto that is Gaza, and then wonder why Palestinians feel aggrieved. This is not to excuse the murdering and hostage taking by Palestinian terrorists. However, to say that there is no wrong on one side and that all the wrongness belongs on the other side, is just partisan and simple minded. The destruction of the Palestinians and the rest of their land is what Netanyahu and his henchmen want. To call the innocent children killed in his vile land crab "collateral damage" in just sickening.

[Sy Borg]

Hamas did not need to conduct that strike. They knew it would trigger a disproportionate response. It always does. In fact, Hamas were counting on it. Now Hezbollah looks likely to join in. Hamas would see that as mission accomplished.

What were all the inevitable deaths to Hamas as a result of the attack? Collateral damage.

This is not a one-sided affair but a game of geopolitical chess, where the common people are playing chips to those calling the shots - as they always are.

[Stoppelmann]

Hamas did not need to conduct that strike. They knew it would trigger a disproportionate response. It always does. In fact, Hamas were counting on it. Now Hezbollah looks likely to join in. Hamas would see that as mission accomplished.

What were all the inevitable deaths to Hamas as a result of the attack? Collateral damage.

This is not a one-sided affair but a game of geopolitical chess, where the common people are playing chips to those calling the shots - as they always are.

Have you ever been in a situation like Palestinians have since 1948? That is 75 years! No, I didn't think so.

Have you read other reports on the reaction of the IDF, like from the Newspaper Haaretz? No, I didn't think so!

As long as we take the reports from the normal channels, we will not get a full picture. The actions of the IDF were at times so unbelievable, like striking a house where their own people were, just to destroy the enemy.

It is a pertinent question to ask where in the western world would be accept our military striking a hotel, killing hundreds, in order to kill two terrorists? I think the answer is, we wouldn't!

[Consul]

Israel is ultimately responsible for the deaths of those children.

No, it isn't! For if Hamas hadn't massacred Israelis on 10/7, those Palestinian children would still be alive, since Israel would then have had no reason to bomb Gaza.

They didn't need to do all the bombing. It has gone beyond self-defense to become naked aggression.

What do you want instead—a non-aggressive, peaceful war?
How do you fight an enemy who hides among civilians, using them as human shields and not giving a damn about how many of them get killed?!
Hamas is even cynically happy about civilian casualities among the Palestinians, because the pictures of their dead bodies are grist to their anti-Israel propaganda mill.

Israelis occupy Palestinian land, Israel herds Palestinians into the ghetto that is Gaza, and then wonder why Palestinians feel aggrieved. This is not to excuse the murdering and hostage taking by Palestinian terrorists. However, to say that there is no wrong on one side and that all the wrongness belongs on the other side, is just partisan and simple minded. The destruction of the Palestinians and the rest of their land is what Netanyahu and his henchmen want. To call the innocent children killed in his vile land crab "collateral damage" in just sickening.

I'm not a friend of Netanyahu's far-right government. For example, I strongly reject its expansionist settlement policy in the West Bank.
However, there is a big moral difference between Hamas' intention to kill as many Israeli civilians as possible and Israel's intention to kill as many Hamas members as possible with the knowledge that doing so will inevitably cost civilian lives too, particularly given that Hamas uses civilians as human shields. But, as opposed to Hamas, the Israelis don't want there to be as many civilian casualities as possible—on the contrary! As opposed to Hamas, they do not have the direct intention to murder innocent people!

[Consul]

There is also truth in the following:

History lies at the core of every conflict. A true and unbiased understanding of the past offers the possibility of peace. The distortion or manipulation of history, in contrast, will only sow disaster. As the example of the Israel–Palestine conflict shows, historical disinformation, even of the most recent past, can do tremendous harm. This willful misunderstanding of history can promote oppression and protect a regime of colonization and occupation. It is not surprising, therefore, that policies of disinformation and distortion continue to the present and play an important part in perpetuating the conflict, leaving very little hope for the future. Constructed fallacies about the past and the present in Israel and Palestine hinder us from understanding the origins of the conflict. Meanwhile, the constant manipulation of the relevant facts works against the interests of all those victimized by the ongoing bloodshed and violence. What is to be done? The Zionist historical account of how the disputed land became the state of Israel is based on a cluster of myths that subtly cast doubt on the Palestinians’ moral right to the land. Often, the Western mainstream media and political elites accept this set of myths as a given truth, as well as the justification for Israeli actions across the last sixty or so years. More often than not, the tacit acceptance of these myths serves as an explanation for Western governments’ disinclination to interfere in any meaningful way in a conflict that has been going on since the nation’s foundation.
Pappe, Ilan (2017-04-03T23:58:59.000). Ten Myths About Israel . Verso. Kindle Edition.

Ilan Pappe (Hebrew אילן פפה, occasionally Ilan Pappé or Ilan Papeh, * 1954 in Haifa) is an Israeli historian, author and professor at the University of Exeter. Pappe's work focuses on the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and he has written extensively on topics related to the conflict, Zionism, and the establishment of the State of Israel.

"Hamas is branded as a terrorist organization, both in the media and in legislation. I will claim that it is a liberation movement, and a legitimate one at that."

(Pappe, Ilan. Ten Myths About Israel. London: Verso, 2017. p. 108)

I wonder if he still affirms this statement after 10/7.

"Palestine was not empty and the Jewish people had homelands; Palestine was colonized, not “redeemed”; and its people were dispossessed in 1948, rather than leaving voluntarily. Colonized people, even under the UN Charter, have the right to struggle for their liberation, even with an army, and the successful ending to such a struggle lies in the creation of a democratic state that includes all of its inhabitants. A discussion of the future, liberated from the ten myths about Israel, will hopefully not only help to bring peace to Israel and Palestine, but will also help Europe reach a proper closure on the horrors of World War II and the dark era of colonialism."

(Pappe, Ilan. Ten Myths About Israel. London: Verso, 2017. p. 137)

It is true that "Palestine was not empty" when Jewish immigration to it began: Demographic history of Palestine

According to the OED, "to colonize" means "to form or establish a colony or settlement", and "colony" means "a settlement in a new country; a body of people who settle in a new locality, forming a community subject to or connected with their parent state; the community so formed, consisting of the original settlers and their descendants and successors, as long as the connexion with the parent state is kept up".

The Jews colonized Palestine in the sense of forming or establishing a settlement there (and eventually a nation-state). They didn't do so in the sense of forming or establishing a colony of a pre-existent parent state, since there was no pre-existent Jewish parent state in Europe or elsewhere. Yes, "the Jewish people had homelands," but they hadn't already had a state of their own (like the Germans when they started colonizing regions of Africa).

He calls what happened in 1948…

"The ethnic cleansing of Palestine: British Mandate ends, the State of Israel declared and recognized by the United States and the USSR. Israel at war with troops entering Palestine from neighboring Arab countries while completing the expulsion of half of Palestine’s population, demolishing half of its villages, and emptying and destroying eleven of its twelve towns."

(Pappe, Ilan. Ten Myths About Israel. London: Verso, 2017. p. 139)

I'd like to hear the opinions of other historians as to whether the term "ethnic cleansing" is used properly here.

According to Pappe, the "colonization" of Palestine by the Jews is an original sin that gives the Arabs the inviolable basic right to violent resistance (including terrorist acts) until the pro-Palestinian one-state solution is realized by destroying the "colonialist-imperialist apartheid state of Israel" (not a Pappe quote!).

I don't agree, particularly not because I prefer the two-state solution; but I don't deny that the simplistic and one-sided "Arabs (always) bad/Jews (always) good" narrative is a myth. This is not to say that I fully share Pappe's "ten-myths" interpretation of the history of Israel, which is itself anything but impartial, as he himself admits: "This is not a balanced book; it is yet another attempt to redress the balance of power on behalf of the colonized, occupied, and oppressed Palestinians in the land of Israel and Palestine." (p. 10)

Note that I don't sympathize with the political plans of the ultranationalists and religious fundamentalists on the Jewish side, who prefer an expansionist anti-Palestinian one-state solution, with the Gaza Strip and the West Bank being officially incorporated into the state of Israel and the Palestinians living there being forced to leave those regions.

[Sy Borg]

Hamas did not need to conduct that strike. They knew it would trigger a disproportionate response. It always does. In fact, Hamas were counting on it. Now Hezbollah looks likely to join in. Hamas would see that as mission accomplished.

What were all the inevitable deaths to Hamas as a result of the attack? Collateral damage.

This is not a one-sided affair but a game of geopolitical chess, where the common people are playing chips to those calling the shots - as they always are.

Have you ever been in a situation like Palestinians have since 1948? That is 75 years! No, I didn't think so.

Have you read other reports on the reaction of the IDF, like from the Newspaper Haaretz? No, I didn't think so!

As long as we take the reports from the normal channels, we will not get a full picture. The actions of the IDF were at times so unbelievable, like striking a house where their own people were, just to destroy the enemy.

It is a pertinent question to ask where in the western world would be accept our military striking a hotel, killing hundreds, in order to kill two terrorists? I think the answer is, we wouldn't!

Have you lived under the threat of being bombed for 75 years, with your people suffering unpredictable periodic attacks? How would you respond to a neighbour who regularly publicly states that their aim is the destruction of your country and the death of all your people? This is a neighbour who has always refused compromise solutions. Would you want those neighbours close to you or would you try to keep them at a distance? That's what the "settlements" are about - a barrier. The abuses along the way can't be justified, but it doesn't look like Hamas's attack has worked out well for Palestinians, has it?

Could their attack have ever achieved anything good for the collateral ... er, I mean, Palestinian civilians? No. They knew it would be a disaster for their people, but they care more about the politics.

Your comments about the mainstream media amount to a personal comment about me rather than a meaningful statement on the issue, so that logical fallacy can be safely ignored as merely emotional.

Here's an idea. Look at the situation and consider both sides.

The world is subject to wartime propaganda, not just the west. Do you think Hamas are innocent little bunnies being victimised by the big bad? Do you think they don't deliberately embed with civilians (under threat of death) so as to incite atrocities that can be trumpeted around the world media?

The lies and counter lies cancel each other out. That leaves the physical reality of hostile neighbours of unequal power, one of whom is overly controlling and disrespectful while the other is incapable of compromise or reason. There is no good and bad here. Rather it's a conflict of interest and exercise of power between two states in an ever-shifting world polity that refuses to remain static, despite many attempts to keep it so. The top brass make the decisions and civilians suffer, every time.

Hamas is close to getting Hezbollah involved. The intent of their attack was to incite a maximal Israeli response so as to galvanise forces and incite a wider conflict. Hardly laudable when people speak of "collateral damage". Israel is playing into their hands politically, but they don't care if the war escalates, just as long as Hamas are out of the picture.

Today, China's official electronic maps do not recognise Israel as a nation. That leaves much of the Middle East aligning with Russia and China against the west. We are already in a world war. Much of it is political and electronic, but physical violence is increasing.

[value]

320px-Israel-Palestine_peace.svg.png (9.56 KiB) Viewed 473 times

Working for peace through environmental cooperation. We are Jordanian, Palestinian and Israeli environmentalists working together to protect our water — and our future.
https://ecopeaceme.org/

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

Reason and intellect is a higher good than war and revenge. Philosophy can be the solution, and because of it, philosophy should be held responsible.

"Modern man is to be expected to evolve beyond barbaric practices such as war and revenge if it intends to secure longer term prosperity. Intelligence before practice means overcoming darkness before it was ever present, and thus, to prevent war and revenge in favour of reason."

According to an article on the website of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ancient Chinese philosophy holds that "a just cause should be pursued for the common good". The article also notes that the Chinese nation has always held beliefs such as "peace is most precious", "harmony without uniformity", "peace among all nations", and "universal love and non-aggression".

The idea of good, that is philosophy. It is Levinas his eschatological vision that can secure actual peace.

Philosophy should be held responsible.

"Within the context of reason, there is no place for evil."

Kant wrote in "Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason,": "pure reason is the faculty of concepts, and concepts are not concerned with the inclinations, but only with the understanding and its object"

Therefore, according to Kant (who authored one of the most profound works on reason), pure reason cannot be the source of evil, which arises from the inclinations and desires of the human will. Kant believed that every human being has the capacity to resist evil and choose the moral path, which is the path of reason.

I still wonder why the following forum topic by a Chinese philosopher received little to no attention:

Universal values
The oriental universal values derived from Chinese civilization has been turned into a challenge for Western universal values. ... However, the Oriental universal values are “social morality” in nature, “selfless”, “interests of all sentient beings” ... Xuan Changwei, a Chinese thinker early published articles which declared: “A Chinese thinker tells Obama: human hopes are in China, new Chinese ideas will lead the world for thousands of years”.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14969

[Pattern-chaser]

* Since "anti-Semitism" is generally used in the sense of "anti-Judaism", Palestinians can certainly be anti-Semites (and most of them are).

* Since indigenous Palestinians also trace their ancestry back to the ancient Semite tribe, Israelis can certainly be anti-Semites too (and most of them are).



That's why I stick to "anti-Jewish", where it applies, and to "anti-Israeli" where that is appropriate. The meanings are clearer, and so less likely to lead to confusion.

[Pattern-chaser]

Hamas did not need to conduct that strike. They knew it would trigger a disproportionate response. It always does. In fact, Hamas were counting on it. Now Hezbollah looks likely to join in. Hamas would see that as mission accomplished.

What were all the inevitable deaths to Hamas as a result of the attack? Collateral damage.

This is not a one-sided affair but a game of geopolitical chess, where the common people are playing chips to those calling the shots - as they always are.

The Palestinian people have been trying for three generations () to rid their country of a brutal, USA-sponsored/nurtured/financed, military occupation. Are we really surprised that they try anything and everything they can to reclaim their own homeland? Wouldn't any of us do the same, under the same circumstances? What if China invaded and occupied Oz? How would you feel after 75 years of plunder and murder?


...and isn't it reasonable to suggest that this very much is a "one-sided affair", the American/Israeli side?

[Consul]

* Since "anti-Semitism" is generally used in the sense of "anti-Judaism", Palestinians can certainly be anti-Semites (and most of them are).

* Since indigenous Palestinians also trace their ancestry back to the ancient Semite tribe, Israelis can certainly be anti-Semites too (and most of them are).

There can certainly be anti-Semitic (Jew-hating) Arab Israelis.
An anti-Semitic (Jew-hating) Jewish Israeli would be a strange case of ethnic self-hate.

That's why I stick to "anti-Jewish", where it applies, and to "anti-Israeli" where that is appropriate. The meanings are clearer, and so less likely to lead to confusion.

The meaning of "anti-Semitism" is sufficiently clear: "theory, action, or practice directed against the Jews. Hence anti-Semite, one who is hostile or opposed to the Jews" (Oxford Dictionary of English) – So anti-Semitism = anti-Jewism.

What about the terms "anti-Judaism" and "anti-Israelism"?
The OED defines the former as "the profession or practice of the Jewish religion; the religious system or polity of the Jews". Thus defined, "anti-Judaism" and "anti-Semitism" are not synonyms, because "anti-Jewish-religion" or "anti-Jewish-theism" is not synonymous with "anti-Jewish (simpliciter)".
I would define "anti-Israelism" as the view that the state of Israel has no right to exist, that there should be no such state as Israel, that Israel should be wiped off the map of Palestine. (Note that anti-Israelism thus defined is different from "anti-(current-)Israeli-governmentism"!)

[Consul]

The Palestinian people have been trying for three generations to rid their country of a brutal, USA-sponsored/nurtured/financed, military occupation. Are we really surprised that they try anything and everything they can to reclaim their own homeland? Wouldn't any of us do the same, under the same circumstances? What if China invaded and occupied Oz? How would you feel after 75 years of plunder and murder?

The questionable phrases are "their country" and "their own homeland"! Are the Arabs living in Palestine the sole rightful owners of it? Note that there has never been an Arab state called Palestine before the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948!

"Right versus Right. This is the usual answer to the question: “Whose Holy Land?” This is considered to be the truth among moderate and thus reasonable people, who can be found on both sides. I support their stance too, but unfortunately they are wrong when they defend the “right versus right” argument.

My view is: wrong versus wrong. I regret to say that this is the only way to describe the situation in the Holy Land.

Both the Jews and the Arabs were temporary possessors but not owners of the Holy Land. Today it is impossible for us to identify the legal successors or direct descendants of the original owners, even if we conducted genealogical and racial research, which is controversial (not only for Germans).

The Holy Land is a cemetery of nations. This is where the Canaanites rest. Neither the Palestinians nor the Jews are their descendants. There were, however, many successors. All of them regarded themselves as the real owners during the four-thousand-year history of the Holy Land. They thought that taking possession of the land was the same as obtaining ownership.

Since the time of the Romans, the acquisition of ownership through adverse possession has been a familiar concept in the European legal tradition. This also applies to the laws of the ancient Near East, for example the Code of Lipit-Ishtar (around 1934–1924 BCE) and the Code of Hammurabi (Babylonian period, 1792–1750 BCE). Ownership, however, could be acquired through adverse possession only if the original owner was unable to pay his debts or fulfil his feudal obligations. This has never been the case with the different possessors of the Holy Land.

But what is the point of this legal dispute? Such a dispute is in fact pointless because law has seldom delivered justice. One example is the British Mandate, which is firmly based on international law but morally highly questionable.

In many cases, however, justice is a double-edged sword. Too many attempts to achieve or restore justice have turned into brutality and terrorism or, in other words, into the destruction of human lives on behalf of humanity.

All possessors of the Holy Land, including Jews and Arabs, came as conquerors or took possession of the land through violence. As a result, their reputation was stained from the beginning.

Historically, there was no moral justification for taking possession of this land. Possession was always based on power. This is probably why the Jewish conquerors looked for and found a religious justification. They referred to the divine promise in the Bible (which they themselves wrote). The Conquered Land thus became the Promised Land. In other words, the Jewish possessors issued themselves a certificate of ownership: the Bible.

This touches on matters of faith; it is, however, not my intention here to refute divine inspiration. The Hebrew Bible gave the Canaanite owners (as well as the Moabites, the Ammonites and the Edomites) a good kick (Genesis 9:21): Noah “drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.” Ham, the youngest of Noah’s three sons, saw his drunken father lying naked in the tent. Ham’s brothers, Shem and Japheth, lowered their eyes and covered Noah with a garment. After Noah woke up, this otherwise kind and honest man cursed Canaan, Ham’s completely innocent son. Noah cursed Canaan to eternal servitude. For some, this story provides a religious and at the same time pseudo-historical justification for the subjection of the Canaanite people. For devout Jews this story is true.

But what if there are people who do not share this belief and doubt its ability to justify ownership? The result is a religious war, which is something that any reasonable person would want to avoid.

What remains is a “Holy War”. A highly dubious concept that has been abused too often. Anyone who qualifies a war as holy should take care not to lose sight of heaven. This applies equally to Jews, Muslims, Christians, and others.

The Palestinians have not stepped on the thin ice of religion. With the exception of those (including some Islamic fanatics) whose intention it is to render the Holy Land “clean of Jews”. It is no surprise that the Palestinians refer to the holiness of the land and the city of Jerusalem only in very general terms. I have shown that it is not altogether heretical to suggest that the Quran can be interpreted as a Zionist source. Some readers may indignantly claim that this is a “misinterpretation” on my part. Before doing so, however, they should first read the texts presented and explained here, compare them with the Quran and consider the Jewish roots of the Quran.

The Palestinians thus do not focus on religious sources but instead on their ancestors: the Canaanites and the Philistines. This ancestral line, however, is wrong, in spite of all the speeches, essays and books that may be well intentioned but are less well researched.

So, who owns the Holy Land? The Holy Land belongs to no one—and everyone. To all survivors. To all people who want to live there or have to live there.

Anyone who claims a right to the land must be aware that such a right has absolutely no solid foundation. The Holy Land belongs to the survivors of different peoples, including, of course, the Jews and the Arabs. As a transit region, the Holy Land has always been multinational, multiconfessional and multicultural."

(Wolffsohn, Michael. Whose Holy Land? The Roots of the Conflict Between Jews and Arabs. Cham: Springer, 2021. pp. 207-9)

[Consul]

Michael Wolffsohn is a German-Jewish historian, and he suggests the following political solution to the conflict between Arabs and Jews:

"A “Solomonic” Solution: A Mixture of Federalism and Confederalism

1. In the long run, a compromise may be possible since there will come a time when the Kingdom of Jordan is “Palestine”. In demographic terms, Jordan is today already a Palestinian country since about three quarters of its population are Palestinians. This development began in 1921 when Emir (later King) Abdallah imposed himself (with British help) on the mostly Palestinian population of Jordan´s East Bank and was strengthened in 1948, when he carelessly incorporated an additional peace of Palestine into his territory by illegally annexing the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Although all of these Palestinian entities became a part of Jordan in 1948, today´s Jordanian Kingdom of the East Bank will become “Palestine” in the long term. Due to its demographic structure there is every reason to believe that this will be the case. The King could help shape this process and play a role similar to that of the federal president in Germany. He could be a “moral” and representative rather than a political authority.

2. While all eyes are on the occupied territories, the Palestinians living in Israel are a domestic challenge that remains unnoticed.

What we must keep this in mind:

* Like it or not: The West Bank, East Jerusalem and Israel proper have a mixed Jewish and Arab population. A “separation of the population groups” would be possible only with blood and violence, by unacceptable “ethnic cleansing”. For his reason, such an approach must be rejected.

* Palestinian Arabs constitute the overwhelming majority of the population in today´s Jordanian Kingdom.

* Self-determination as such is what matters to people, not the geographical location of self-determination. Personal rather than territorial self-determination. In other words: Self-determination for the people rather than the territory.

This suggests that a compromise may be possible and could involve both a Jewish as well as an Arab federal state (like “states” in the US or in Germany) in Israel proper Add to this an Arab-Palestinian “state” plus a Jewish “state” in the West Bank and an exclusively Palestinian-Arab “state” in the Gaza Strip.
In other words, this would be a mixture of a federal state (federation) and a union of states (confederation). The federal state would consist of component US-like states, i.e. Israel (= Israel proper), the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The union of states (confederation) would be formed by Jordan, Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (= Palestine).

Here is a summarizing scheme:
A—Federal States

(I) Federal State of Israel (Personal Self-Determination) – Israel proper (4 June 1967 borders)

(a) Jewish Israelis
(b) Palestinian-Arab Israelis

1 State Legislature for the Jewish and Palestinian-Arab population respectively (elections by each people)
1 Federal Legislature (nationwide elections) forming and controlling the Executive

(II) Federal Palestinian-Jewish West Bank State (Separate Police Forces only, no Military)

(a) Palestinian-Arabs vote for

* the West Bank Palestinian-Arab State Legislature
* the joint Legislature of the West Bank, Gaza, Palestinian-(Jordanian) Legislature forming and controlling the All-Palestinian Executive

(b) Jewish Israelis vote for

* the Jewish-Israeli State Legislature
* the Legislature of the Federal State of Israel

Disputes between (a) and (b) are to be solved a mixed Arbitration/Mediation Council

(III) Federal Palestinian Gaza State (Police only, demilitarized)

Gaza Palestinians vote for

* the Gaza Palestinian-Arab State Legislature
* the joint Legislature of the West Bank, Gaza, Palestinian-(Jordanian) Legislature forming and controlling the All-Palestinian Executive

B) Single, Central State: Constitutional Kingdom of Palestine-Jordan (Military + Police Forces)

* National elections for its Legislature forming and controlling the Executive

C) Israeli-Palestinian Confederation A + B

Self-determination should be for people, not territories. As a result, every ethnic group would elect its representation regardless of where they live. In other words, Palestinians living in Galilee, Haifa and Jaffa as well as Palestinians living in East Jerusalem, Hebron, Nablus, Amman and Aqaba would elect the Palestinian parliament. Jews living in Tel Aviv and West Jerusalem as well as Jews living in East Jerusalem, near Hebron and Nablus would elect the Israeli parliament. The powers of the different parliaments and governments would have to be defined in detail.

During a period of transition, foreign and security policy decisions affecting Israel proper, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip would have to be taken by the Israeli-Jewish government.

The Palestinian component state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip would have foreign and police but no military powers.

In the long term, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip could be and would have to be demilitarised. International control of this demilitarisation is a pipe dream. Since this approach would be in the interest of both sides, it should work nevertheless since only mutual interests create ties that bind and bond.

The Palestinian-Arab government (elected by Palestinians in Israel, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and, of course, Palestine-Jordan) would have a traditional foreign and security policy that would cover the territory of present-day Jordan, which would be the Palestine of tomorrow. When will this vision become a reality?

This solution would imply the continuation of conventional statehood in the territory of present-day Israel and present-day Jordan and a division of power in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The Jewish state would not lose its Jewish character. And the Palestinians could finally exercise their right to self-determination, though not without restrictions: self-determination or rather sovereignty in all matters would be limited to Palestine (present-day Jordan). The Palestinians would not have achieved everything but definitely more than they possess today. There is nothing to suggest that they will be successful if they demand even more.

A complete withdrawal from the West Bank would make it impossible for Israel to survive. Not for military but for pragmatic reasons: Israel would not have enough water. Without the underground water resources of the West Bank, the Israeli population would die of thirst. At the same time, however, the Palestinians will not allow themselves to be deprived of their water. This issue too must be solved through cooperation and not a power struggle. Otherwise, blood will be shed for water.

The ideas of that time were on the cusp of becoming reality. But the election of the Netanyahu government in 1996 marked a turning point. Barak then tried to revive these ideas, but this attempt failed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada and paved the way for Sharon. The situation was similar to that in 1992.

Now as then, Jews and Arabs must draw a line and must reach a compromise. Otherwise, they will end up as losers. The arms race in the Middle East has reached a dangerous stage. Middle Eastern countries have stocked up on biological and especially chemical weapons. And then there are nuclear weapons and their destructive power.

Israel has long possessed a nuclear bomb. Iraq has tried to develop one again and again (even after the Gulf War of 1991). Iran and Algeria (at least until the 1992 coup) as well as Libya´s Gadhafi until 2003 have tried everything to acquire a nuclear bomb. The build-up of nuclear capabilities in the Middle East is well underway."

(Wolffsohn, Michael. Whose Holy Land? The Roots of the Conflict Between Jews and Arabs. Cham: Springer, 2021. pp. 209-12)

[Sy Borg]

The Palestinian people have been trying for three generations to rid their country of a brutal, USA-sponsored/nurtured/financed, military occupation. Are we really surprised that they try anything and everything they can to reclaim their own homeland? Wouldn't any of us do the same, under the same circumstances? What if China invaded and occupied Oz? How would you feel after 75 years of plunder and murder?

The questionable phrases are "their country" and "their own homeland"! Are the Arabs living in Palestine the sole rightful owners of it? Note that there has never been an Arab state called Palestine before the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948!

"Right versus Right. This is the usual answer to the question: “Whose Holy Land?” This is considered to be the truth among moderate and thus reasonable people, who can be found on both sides. I support their stance too, but unfortunately they are wrong when they defend the “right versus right” argument.

My view is: wrong versus wrong. I regret to say that this is the only way to describe the situation in the Holy Land.

Both the Jews and the Arabs were temporary possessors but not owners of the Holy Land. Today it is impossible for us to identify the legal successors or direct descendants of the original owners, even if we conducted genealogical and racial research, which is controversial (not only for Germans).

The Holy Land is a cemetery of nations. This is where the Canaanites rest. Neither the Palestinians nor the Jews are their descendants. There were, however, many successors. All of them regarded themselves as the real owners during the four-thousand-year history of the Holy Land. They thought that taking possession of the land was the same as obtaining ownership.

Since the time of the Romans, the acquisition of ownership through adverse possession has been a familiar concept in the European legal tradition. This also applies to the laws of the ancient Near East, for example the Code of Lipit-Ishtar (around 1934–1924 BCE) and the Code of Hammurabi (Babylonian period, 1792–1750 BCE). Ownership, however, could be acquired through adverse possession only if the original owner was unable to pay his debts or fulfil his feudal obligations. This has never been the case with the different possessors of the Holy Land.

But what is the point of this legal dispute? Such a dispute is in fact pointless because law has seldom delivered justice. One example is the British Mandate, which is firmly based on international law but morally highly questionable.

In many cases, however, justice is a double-edged sword. Too many attempts to achieve or restore justice have turned into brutality and terrorism or, in other words, into the destruction of human lives on behalf of humanity.

All possessors of the Holy Land, including Jews and Arabs, came as conquerors or took possession of the land through violence. As a result, their reputation was stained from the beginning.

Historically, there was no moral justification for taking possession of this land. Possession was always based on power. This is probably why the Jewish conquerors looked for and found a religious justification. They referred to the divine promise in the Bible (which they themselves wrote). The Conquered Land thus became the Promised Land. In other words, the Jewish possessors issued themselves a certificate of ownership: the Bible.

This touches on matters of faith; it is, however, not my intention here to refute divine inspiration. The Hebrew Bible gave the Canaanite owners (as well as the Moabites, the Ammonites and the Edomites) a good kick (Genesis 9:21): Noah “drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.” Ham, the youngest of Noah’s three sons, saw his drunken father lying naked in the tent. Ham’s brothers, Shem and Japheth, lowered their eyes and covered Noah with a garment. After Noah woke up, this otherwise kind and honest man cursed Canaan, Ham’s completely innocent son. Noah cursed Canaan to eternal servitude. For some, this story provides a religious and at the same time pseudo-historical justification for the subjection of the Canaanite people. For devout Jews this story is true.

But what if there are people who do not share this belief and doubt its ability to justify ownership? The result is a religious war, which is something that any reasonable person would want to avoid.

What remains is a “Holy War”. A highly dubious concept that has been abused too often. Anyone who qualifies a war as holy should take care not to lose sight of heaven. This applies equally to Jews, Muslims, Christians, and others.

The Palestinians have not stepped on the thin ice of religion. With the exception of those (including some Islamic fanatics) whose intention it is to render the Holy Land “clean of Jews”. It is no surprise that the Palestinians refer to the holiness of the land and the city of Jerusalem only in very general terms. I have shown that it is not altogether heretical to suggest that the Quran can be interpreted as a Zionist source. Some readers may indignantly claim that this is a “misinterpretation” on my part. Before doing so, however, they should first read the texts presented and explained here, compare them with the Quran and consider the Jewish roots of the Quran.

The Palestinians thus do not focus on religious sources but instead on their ancestors: the Canaanites and the Philistines. This ancestral line, however, is wrong, in spite of all the speeches, essays and books that may be well intentioned but are less well researched.

So, who owns the Holy Land? The Holy Land belongs to no one—and everyone. To all survivors. To all people who want to live there or have to live there.

Anyone who claims a right to the land must be aware that such a right has absolutely no solid foundation. The Holy Land belongs to the survivors of different peoples, including, of course, the Jews and the Arabs. As a transit region, the Holy Land has always been multinational, multiconfessional and multicultural."

(Wolffsohn, Michael. Whose Holy Land? The Roots of the Conflict Between Jews and Arabs. Cham: Springer, 2021. pp. 207-9)

Exactly. There are constant grievances about who owned what and, as the quote above states, this has always been the case. Every group complaining about being dispossessed lies on the bones of those whom their ancestors dispossessed.

Also, Israel would be crazy not to try to create a buffer zone. The terrorist attack and kidnappings are clear evidence that the buffer zone was still inadequate to ensure the safety of Israeli citizens, even after decades of border creep.

The Canaanites, for instance, were not only dispossessed but slandered in Biblical propaganda. Should the land be vacated by all and returned to the Canaanites? DNA tests show that their descendants are portions of the Israel, Palestine and Lebanon populace so that might complicate things ...

[Consul]

What about the terms "anti-Judaism" and "anti-Israelism"?
The OED defines the former as "the profession or practice of the Jewish religion; the religious system or polity of the Jews". Thus defined, "anti-Judaism" and "anti-Semitism" are not synonyms, because "anti-Jewish-religion" or "anti-Jewish-theism" is not synonymous with "anti-Jewish (simpliciter)".
I would define "anti-Israelism" as the view that the state of Israel has no right to exist, that there should be no such state as Israel, that Israel should be wiped off the map of Palestine. (Note that anti-Israelism thus defined is different from "anti-(current-)Israeli-governmentism"!)

I forgot to mention "anti-Zionism", which I think is synonymous with "anti-Israelism": There should be no such Jewish state as Israel.