Talk:Proposals for a Palestinian state

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

/Archive1

Contents 1 POV Tag 2 I can't find the meaning of this word 3 Removal of 99% 4 Where did this come from? 5 Palestinian organisations 6 'Support of "transfer" aspect' 7 Merging 8 Why is no one giving their own personal opinion on the matter? 9 Who declared what? 10 Update of time-sensitive information needed

[edit] POV Tag

In light of the vigorous consensus-building and dispute resolution attempts in Talk sections of articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, I am removing the POV tags. If someone has a any further problems not already covered in Talk then by all means restore the tag but please start a new section and bring forth your concerns for consensus building. These perpetual NPOV tags are unreasonable.--A. S. A. 09:17, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I can't find the meaning of this word

3. a single bi-national state, with or without some degree of cantonization

I've tried Dictionary.com and refered to my Oxford Dictionary, neither have the word.

A canton is a small administrative division of a country. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:06, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See articles Canton (subnational entity) and Cantons of Switzerland. --AladdinSE 08:01, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of 99%

Mustafaa, can you explain your edit? It doesn't make mathematical sense to me. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Where did this come from?

Can somebody provide a source for the following statement?

• Insistence by the Palestinians that all Jewish communities within the territories to be part of a Palestinian state be removed. This includes ancient communities (Hebron), communities destroyed in 1948 and since re-established (Gush Etzion), and settlements established since 1967. The Palestinian position on the Jews of the Old City of Jerusalem is unclear.

Indeed, the removal of Jewish-only settlements is a Palestinian demand, but this sentence, given that it refers to "Jewish communities", implies that Palestinians do not want any Jews to remain in a Palestinian state, which is false. I'm sure there are some people who feel that way, but is there any evidence that this is an official Palestinian position? Ramallite ^(talk) 19:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

So the Palestinian position is that the Jewish communities of Hebron and Gush Etzion could stay? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The above sentence implies that Palestinians insist that, in a final agreement, there should be no Jews in Palestine (at least that's how I read it, but who am I if not the one who burped during Boris Yeltsin's acceptance speech) - my question is where is the evidence to support this? I haven't seen any. In response to your questions, the most recent proposals (like the Geneva Accords) indicate that Gush Etzion would stay under Israeli sovereignty. The problem with Hebron, as I've indicated elsewhere, is not that the residents there are Jewish, but rather that they are religious zealots who number around 500 who are making life very difficult for 20,000 Palestinians in H-2 who are hostage to the settlers' whims and belief that they alone have the right to be there. Not only do they believe in their supremacy over Hebron's Palestinian population, but they unnecessarily employ the resources of the State of Israel to put that supremacy into practice. I wouldn't want anybody like that in my neighborhood either. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe they number closer to 1000, and I suspect their view of what is going on is the mirror image of your own. Nevertheless, what I'm getting from this is that the ancient Jewish presence in Hebron would have to go. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not aware that they have reached 1000 [1]. I guess I was also wrong about the Palestinians in H-2 - who seem to be around 40,000 not 20,000. Also, their view cannot be the mirror image of my own, because I do not advocate supremacy over anybody else, nor do I believe it is my divine right to destroy my Jewish neighbor's home just to build more houses for myself, or take my neighbor's drinking water and use it to bathe my pets. I also don't believe in beating up somebody else just because they are a different religion from myself, and do not employ the services of an army presence 3 times the size of my community to subjugate my neighbors, who don't have an army of their own. Lastly, emotions are pretty high right now from years of conflict, but I would hate to see Jews banned from Hebron, and would welcome a Jewish presence in Hebron or anywhere else, just as long as they don't intend to kick me out or take away my rights like the current inhabitants of Hebron do. And I'm sure you won't believe this is a majority view, and you have every right to believe what you want, but the reality can be pretty different if everybody has the same rights as equals. Ramallite ^(talk) 21:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right about the population. Regarding the other, I wasn't clear; I don't think you hold these views; rather, I think the views of the Jewish residents of Hebron regarding Arab feelings and beliefs exactly mirror the views you attribute to them regarding their own feelings and beliefs. That is, they think the Arabs of Hebron deliberately make life very difficult for them, and hold them hostage based on their belief that Arabs alone have the right to be there, and should reign supreme over Jews, and that it is only the army that prevents a repeat of the 1929 pogrom. Anyway, what is the official Palestinian position regarding Jews living in the West Bank? Would they all be welcome to stay in their homes if they became citizens of the Palestinian Authority, or some sort of successor? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

This is my own speculation based on my own interactions and knowledge of those who have been on negotiating teams, plus some facts. The Palestinian position is very careful not to dismiss the rights or privileges of any Palestinian future citizen, including Jews, to equal citizenry. Most Palestinian documents, as you know, do consider Jewish residents of pre-Zionism Palestine as Palestinians. Having said that, it is also the Palestinian position that settlements themselves must go since it is not currently conceivable for Palestinians to offer Jewish settlers citizenship, based on two things: first, the Israeli negotiating partners will dismiss such a notion as ridiculous, since most settlers would not want to stay in a newly established Palestinian state, and second, it would not be logical during the first few years because settlements are considered as symbols of occupation, and they would effectively be our "Bastilles" where hatred of them, and unfortunately their inhabitants, would run deep. It would take time for Palestinians to build up our infrastructure and "get over" the misery caused by settlements (meaning land confiscations as well as physical abuse by armed settlers). This is as far as settlements go. Now, should Israelis who are Jewish wish to live within cities and villages that are not settlements, depending on locality, it should be much easier and plausible, especially as there is precedent for that (Amira Hass, for example, the Jewish Israeli Haaretz journalist who lives in Ramallah). I don't know that too many Israeli Jews would have any reason to apply for Palestinian citizenship though, especially with Israel within a few minutes driving distance, except for example to get out of army service and such. Of course, non-Israeli Jews have lived among us normally, either temporarily or permanently through marriage, for as long as I can remember. So to make a long story even longer (it seems), the current position is that settlements must go but ex-settlers would eventually be welcome back as what we perceive as non-colonists, and all negotiators agree that, sooner or later, for economic / trade /business reasons if for nothing else, this would have to happen. Incidentally, there was a column a few years ago by an Israeli by the name of Yoram Sadeh who, to quote a synopsis of the piece:

• "His basic premise is that the only lasting peace will be a warm peace, and that symmetry and equal respect between Israel and the future Palestinian state provide a fair solution. A corollary of this is the idea that Jewish settlers can remain in the Palestinian state as citizens of Israel who respect the local Palestinian laws, and conversely, Arabs in Israel could either have full Israeli citizenship, including serving in the army, or Palestinian citizenship."

This article has since disappeared from the internet, but the premise, where settlers stay as Israeli citizens but obeying Palestinian laws, is probably the only solution that the Palestinian side could agree to in a manner that would keep settlements intact. Ramallite ^(talk) 22:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The problem that is not addressed is that Israeli settlers are in contravention to IV Geneva Convention, Article 49, which makes them eligible for War Crimes Tribunals. This raises the following issuue: Israeli settlers knowinmg that they may be tried for War Crimes should they stay in the future State of Palestine; Would they be proponents of staying? Palestinian laws are bound to adhere to International law.

I have added the following in the reference section:

• Auld Lang Syne, Scots Nationalism, and Palestinian Fraud by Michael Medved

[edit] Palestinian organisations

What are the four Palestinian organisations' emblems for? They're placement in the "impediments" section doesn't seem appropriate. Yodakii 15:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The fact that groups like Hamas insist that they will conquer the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Israel is seen as an impediment to peace by many. The fact that they include all these territories in their emblems is also seen by many as an indication of their territorial ambitions. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, I was the one who put that table in that section. Could you please, as a sign of good faith, remove the table from the general conflict page (Israeli-Palestinian conflict)? I tried to do that but I was opposed by Humus_sapiens even though the placement of the table here is more logical. If you would remove the table, it would be much appreciated.Heraclius 15:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I removed the table because there I couldn't find any clear explanation for them. The table simply described some emblems. The only way I could make sense of them is that the table implied that some Palestinian organizations are by there existence an impediment to a Palestinian state. A valid argument but not clearly explained in the article. Sorry I couldn't find anything in the discussion here about them. The table seemed obviously out of place. If the table is to remain, then there should be some explanation as to what it is for. Yodakii 16:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it needs to go somewhere. Since Yodakii insists on removing it from here, then the only logical place left is Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 'Support of "transfer" aspect'

'The Zionist leaders accepted the proposal, seeing the tiny Jewish state as the seed of a future larger state, though their support of the "transfer" aspect was carefully hidden from the public.' Seems like POV to me. Sagi Ganot, October 17 2005

[edit] Merging

We should merge it with the State of Palestine article. (unsigned comment)

We should merge Views of Palestinian statehood here, it's an unnecessary fork. Tazmaniacs 23:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Merege State of Palestine too while youre at it. 129.170.107.243 23:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how you would merge a history of peace attempts with a generally unrecognized "state". I may be missing something here, but it doesn't seem to be making sense (to do that).

[edit] Why is no one giving their own personal opinion on the matter?

Mine is that The Arab Republic of Egypt should give the Sinai penninsula for Palestinian Government as Sweden for the Lapps OR; Have Israel drop the Siniai penn. I mean the Bible does say that The United Kingdom of Israel under Saul, David, and Solomon renewed shall have then Jesus come back for Christians (or Messiah come for the first time for Jews). So the Judeo-Christian World will have their end sooner. The Gaza Strip was not in this original kingdom.

My opinion? The Palestinians should go live with the other Arabs in Egypt and Saudi Arabia and move on, Israel should be left alone and the Palestinians should suck it up and get jobs instead of complaining, the Jews have no problem living with them, its the Palestinians who have the problem, so they shoud either suck it up or leave. All the Palestinians do is complain and cheer when terrosits attack like on 9/11, and the goverments of Iraq and Iran are fueling the Palestinians hatred of the west.

My opinion... oh wait, Wikipedia is not a soapbox!! Plus, this article is about a Palestinian State, not the opinionated controversy of the tensions between Israel and some of its neighbors or related issues/conflicts. Many probably have opinions on this matter, but that is what something like a blog is for (and for the sake of Wikipedia, we also must keep articles NPOV). --clearthought 22:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who declared what?

Cut from article:

On October 1, an independent Palestinian state in all of Palestine was declared, with Jerusalem as its capital.

We need to know who declared this state. Passive voice doesn't help the reader at all. I'm looking for something like:

• The PLO declared all the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea (between Egypt and Lebanon) as "an independent Palestinian state" for Arab Palestinians, where Jewish Palestinians would not be welcome.

Okay, if not the PLO than which organization? And if Jews were welcome, then on what terms, etc? --Uncle Ed 02:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Ed, I am rewording and restoring this sentence. The paragraph talks about The All-Palestine government. The PLO appeared only in 1964. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Humus. My editorial request was based on sheer ignorance. I know very little about the Middle East; but "passive sentences aren't acceptable". Oops! I meant, "I hate passive sentences!" :-) --Uncle Ed 14:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update of time-sensitive information needed

I found one paragraph where it indicates that Sharon is still the head of the Knesset and that the PA is ruling as opposed to Hamas. I've quoted it below, and although I don't have the time to fix it, I suggest someone take the time to update it.

"Who will govern? Israel declares that the current Palestinian Authority is corrupt to the bottom, enjoys a warm relationship with Hamas and other Islamic militant movements, and seems at times to call for the destruction of Israel. This makes it, in Israeli perception, unfit for governing any putative Palestinian state or (especially according to the right wing of Israeli politics), even negotiating about the character of such a state. Because of that, a number of organizations, including the ruling Likud party, declared they would not accept a Palestinian state based on the current PA. (Likud's leader, Prime Minister Sharon, has publicly declared that he rejects this position as too radical). A PA Cabinet minister, Saeb Arekat, declared this would mean Israel is waging a "war" against Palestinians to maintain its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza [10]. Some international observers argue that negotiations and internal Palestinian reform can be undertaken simultaneously. "

Xfireworksx 03:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)xfireworksx