This is a video where two groups were debating the issue of the two state solution. The proponents made a case for one state for all inhabitants of Eretz Israel from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea where all inhabitants have equal citizen rights as one country. The opponents were making a case against one country for all and advocated for the two state solution.
For the hop-eyed lunacy inherent in the case of those advocating for the one state thing for all, I am not interested in that which is same as having the Jews bare their throat to be cut off totally. I am more interested in analyzing the points presented by the opposing side which to him, he was making a good case for the well being of Israel and presenting a hasbara to convince people to support Israel’s case in the conflict with the Arabs as the good side.
Let’s look at the case the guy made from the stand point of an arbiter looking to understand who is right or wrong in this conflict and thus who to support based on the principles of truth, justice and fairness.
I will be looking at it from the starting point that the arbiter has heard the Palestinians make a claim that they are been colonized and want the whole territory. This is inferred from the statement the guy made concerning the Palestinians not been represented in that debate or refusing to participate. They had demanded that the whole of Eretz Israel be freed from Israeli occupation and given back to the Palestinians. The guy here then starts making a case that to stop the conflict; a two state solution should be reached as the best option. He is representing Israel’s welfare in his hasbara argument.
So let’s look at some highlights of his point which an arbiter can consider.
- He made a case that the best option should be for a two state solution between the Palestinians and the Jews.
As an arbiter, I will be asking him, why should a Palestinian share his land you are occupying and colonizing? How many other nations which were occupied and colonized shared their lands and properties with their erstwhile occupiers apart from the native Americans who lost their lands by force of arms, got virtually wiped out and replaced and many other indigenous people of the Middle East who met the same fate? The Poles, Algerians and Vietnam did not share their own territories with the Germans and Pied Noir and Colons respectively when they took their lands back for them to go and form a two state solution there. Many African nations also did not share their lands with those who were colonizing them when they took their lands back. Those people went back to where they came from. Why should a Palestinian share his land with you in that two state solution thing you are asking? Will you want to share your own car with a thief who stole it and you took it back? What of your shirt or other properties? Will you want to share it with another person who stole it and you recovered it?
- He made a case that because Israel wants peace and not conflict, many people there came from Israel to the debate and even though they have different views and opinions, tolerate their opposing stances amongst themselves. To show Israel’s openness to dialogue and compromises they also had Netanyahu who stated that the Palestinians should come for negotiations.
As an arbiter, I will ask, hmmm, so why should Israelis and their leaders be so open for negotiations while the Palestinians refuse? Is it because as the wrong party, Israel is looking for means to surreptitiously steal the land? Obviously, Israel has no claim and that’s why it is always calling for negotiations and begging the other side to come to the table for talks. In history as colonizers and occupiers act, it is always the wrong party which usually calls for negotiations with the people they were colonizing and their resistance groups. They usually know that they were wrong so they will want to call for negotiations, cajole, bribe, divide and rule and employ every gimmick to still hold on to the people’s lands. The British, French and many other colonizing nations used such tactics against the people they were colonizing. The colonized, being buoyed by the morality, truth and justice of their cause will always resist and refuse such enticements which never do them good. Its only when their total liberation that guarantees their freedom and justice is done that they usually take a rest and know that they have achieved something worthwhile and not the show the oppressors usually put up when they call for those negotiations. So obviously, the fact that Israel and its leaders are always calling for negotiations while the Palestinians refuse means that the Israelis are wrong and are the oppressors and colonizers of their lands.
- Syria and other nations of the Middle East are having problems because they are of different religious/cultural affinities and that why it is necessary for Israel and the Palestinians not to be one country.
As an arbiter, I will say that you are right. Nations are and should be created based on shared values/identities/affinity of the populace that binds them together as one people and not done artificially which to me is actually the cause of the failure of many African and Middle East nations in progressing unlike those of Europe. I then wonder why you want to take a part of the land of others and form your nation on it. Go and form your own somewhere else and leave theirs alone.
- Israel and Palestine were given borders in 1947, Arabs got displaced and Jews got ethnic cleansed from the Arab lands. But let’s not address the past here for it will not change anything but let us concentrate on the here and now and move forward.
As an arbiter, I will be like WHAT? Okay, since the borders were given Israel and Palestine in 1948, why then did Israel have to move to Jerusalem and have Jewish settlements in West Bank? If they want to abide by that border, why didn’t they go back to their lands after winning the war of 1948 like America did with Japan and Germany? What are they doing in West Bank? Even though the other side rightly said they will not accept the border which they have a right to say for no one will want his property to be shared, even the one given to Israel in that border in 1947 was not enough and they still took more in 1948 not to talk of 1967. Israel must be very imperialistic to keep taking more territories even though they know that they have rights only to the territories they were give in 1947.
And by the way, who told you that you don’t have to address the wrongs of the past before you move on? The present issue is brought about because of the wrongs of the past and if that wrong is not addressed, it will continue into the future as it is what shapes and determines the lives of the present people in that region. If the wrongs of the past were not addressed, many African and Asian nations will still be under colonialism. Slavery and lack of civil rights for the blacks would have continued in USA if wrongs of the past were not addressed. Wars and many social ills and other issues would not have been sorted out and justice effected if wrongs of the past so long as they are affecting the present were not addressed. What the hell is the essence of justice if wrongs of the past are not addressed? Criminals can go free and the courts will be for nothing. This actually shows that Israel is wrong since you guys are shying away from addressing the terrible injustice of the past you did to the Palestinians because you are afraid that they will be outed for the evil there were.
- There are two peoples there and they are seeking for national self determination there. None of them is going anywhere.
As an arbiter, I will be like really, two peoples there? They are all seeking for national self determination and can do that? Well, it sure sounds to me like you are the one with no claim as the other part said it is their land. Fact is that whether you have two, three, four, five or whatever amount of different people existing in an area, it does not guarantee them rights to talk of forming a nation there. Actually, one or more groups can go or be moved somewhere else as is and was obtained all over the world. In Pakistan in recent times, we had millions of Afghanis residing there, they will not say that because they are and were there, they can then go and form an Afghan nation in that place and call it whatever they like. Their non citizen residents of Pakistani territories were actually expelled recently and they moved. In Algeria, Vietnam, Greece, Poland, Kenya, etc, we had situations of two or more peoples there and it was never their right to want to and then form nations in those territories because they were there.
The Pied Noir did not have rights to form a nation in Oran because they were there.
The Germans did not have rights to form a nation in Wroclau after WW2 because they were there
The Albanians did not have rights to form a nation in Greece because they were there.
The Greeks did not have rights to form a nation in Egypt because they were there.
The colons did not have rights to form a nation in Dien bien Phu because they were there.
And so it was with the white plantation settlers and colonizers of Kenya. They did not have rights to go forming a nation in Nairobi because they were also there.
All the above people either were moved out or went back to where they came from.
So as an arbiter, you sound to me like a guilty one since you are calling for the two people to share the land and form separate states on it while the other side is looking to take back their land.
- In school, when the students have issues, the teachers divide them and split the class.
As an arbiter, I will be like, well, in that school, the students all have rights to be in that class. You are not in school and you are taking another person’s lands and he wants it back.
- Without a two state solution, the two parties will fight to the last drop of blood.
As an arbiter, that’s crap. It is when justice is not effected that the parties will continue fighting. When truth and justice is seen to be effected in a case, then there is no need for any fighting. He who continues to fight when it is absolutely clear that he has no case to justify his fight is wrong and needs to be stopped. It is when issues are glossed over and not trashed and seen to be truly justified that the conflict will continue to linger as each generation will grow up and continue seeking for redress and justice of their cause to be done.