Talk:Binational solution

Proposals to kill?

There is no proposal on the Israeli side to kill everyone in the territories. This is a gross misrepresentation of the Jewish Right Wing in Israel and I do not think it is either accurate or NPOV. The only "radical" solution proposed is forced or voluntary transfer in its many variations and forms, including transfering political representation of Israeli and Palestinian Arabs from Israel to Jordan or swapping land with heavy Arab populations in Israel for land in the territories so the Palestinian Arabs have continuoua territory.

All of these are methods discussed. I have never heard any discussion on the Israeli side from individuals who are credible on the Right or Far Right, in Israel giving any consideration of committing genocide against the Palestinian Arabs. Neither Kach, Herut, Moledet, Likud, NRP, Shas, or any right wing party has ever mentioned genocide as something to seriously follow. If you can provide information counter to my objections, I will withdraw it, until then, I believe this article needs more work and I intend to correct it.

--Guy Montag

Done the first part of this article - I'll add more material at the weekend (hopefully!). Comments welcomed. -- ChrisO 18:33, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Great start, don't stop now. Btw, I wonder if you know anything about a binational proposal made by Chaim Weizmann in 1930. According to a story in the NYT (Sep 14, 1930), Weizmann made the proposal at a meeting of the World Zionist executive committee in Berlin. I uploaded a scan. --Zero

Best page relating to the conflict this, IMO. —Ashley Y 12:01, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)

---

This is a very good article. Two sentences confused me, though:

Histadrut Secretary General I. Ben-Aharon, for instance, warned in a March 1973 article for The Jerusalem Post that Israel could have any real control over a binational state and that Israelis should be satisfied with a state already containing a sizable Arab minority -- that is, Israel proper.

Should that be could not have any real control?

Some of those on the Israel right who were associated with the settler movement were willing to contemplate a binational state as long as it was not established on Zionist terms.

Should that be as long as it was established on Zionist terms. ?

BTW, Ashley, very interesting NYT article.

DRE 22:17, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Does anyone ahve a source to the Gandhi quote? If not it should be removed.

212.41.142.242 06:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Why does the page Two state solution redirect to Binational solution. The two are not the same. The two states solution is not described in here. The matter of a Two state solution is critically important to Jordan [1].

I propose to remove the redirect within a week. Lance6Wins 21:01, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. The two state solution is the exact opposite of the binational solution. —Ashley Y 21:40, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

"Kill the Arabs"

The points of view from of the Jews should be showed clearly and not hidden.[2] "The spiritual leader of Israel's ultra-orthodox Shas party, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, has provoked outrage with a sermon calling for the annihilation of Arabs. "It is forbidden to be merciful to them. You must send missiles to them and annihilate them. They are evil and damnable," he was quoted as saying in a sermon delivered on Monday to mark the Jewish festival of Passover. " Abdel Qadir 03:41, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Although one must keep in mind, that this is a radical and extremist view point; just like radical and extremist Muslims and Arabs that share a similar view towards Jews. Not all Jews and Israelis share this view; just like not all Arabs share this view. One must keep in mind, such an attempt, coming from either side shall be recognized internationally as genocide. --Agari 07:28, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

This was evidence for Mr. 128.120.185.31 who thinks that Jews are not wanting to kill Arabs. Abdel Qadir 17:22, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Shas spokesman, Yitzhaq Suderi defended the rabbi, saying his remarks referred only to "Arab murderers and terrorists" and not the Arab people as a whole. From the same article [3]

As you can see this was just a passionate way or can be considered a passionate way of railing against Arab terrorists, not all Arabs. On the other side, I can produce about several hundred sermons, PA television commercials, Hamas political statements and statements from the majority of the Palestinian political spectrum about wanting to wipe out Israel. The statement of one man, who may have or may not have called for the anihilation of Arabs, a call that may or may not have constituted a call to wipe out Arab terrorist groups (as opposed to a policy that the Israeli Right sees right now as weak) is not definite proof that the entire "extremist" Right considers seriously committing genocide against Arabs. Even Meir Kahane, considered the most extreme Israeli Right Winger, didnt no support genocide but forced transfer. We need to come to an agreement on phrasealogy here. --Guy Montag

The spiritual leader of the Israel Shas party calls for annihilation of the Arabs. That is a fact from BBC supporting edit that Israelis call for killing or deporting Arabs. Abdel Qadir 23:51, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And this fact from the same BBC article says that you are WRONG.

Shas spokesman, Yitzhaq Suderi defended the rabbi, saying his remarks referred only to "Arab murderers and terrorists" and not the Arab people as a whole. From the same article [4]

I just provided proof that he does not support the anihilation of the Arabs but Arab terrorists. You ignored this because you want to equalize to different nationalists together. You want to equate Hamas with the Israeli nationalists when they are two different groups with totally different methodology and goals. As I've said before, Ovadia Yosef called for the destruction of terrorists, Hamas calls for the destruction of Israel. One man does not legitimize the idea of genocide in the eyes of the Israeli Right wing. From my entire reading, and as a nationalist myself, I have never read or heard from anyone who supported anything more "extreme" than forced tranfer.

What is "forced transfer"? It means to force all millions of Palestinians out of their homeland or face death by Jews. That is what it means. Hamas also supports this kind of forced transfer of Jews out of Palestine. Same as same. Abdel Qadir 00:19, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You should read Category:Wikipedia official policy; especially Wikipedia:Three revert rule, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Abdel Qadir 00:39, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Shas spokesman, Yitzhaq Suderi defended the rabbi, saying his remarks referred only to "Arab murderers and terrorists" and not the Arab people as a whole." [5]. This is clearly not a suggestion to murder all Arabs, nor was it made regarding a One-State solution. Moreover, it was a statement made in one speech, not as part of the official policy of any group. Please bring relevant policy from significant people or groups proposing killing all Arabs as part of a one-state solution. And "forced transfer" means forcing them to leave. It doesn't mean killing them. Jayjg 02:24, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Forcing Palestinians to leave their homeland is done only by violence and killing by Jews against Arabs. What else does "forcing" mean? It means using force, violence, and killing even more than now. Israel Shas Party spiritual leader is significant people and he calls for annihilation of all Arabs very clearly. His spokesmen says that only Arab terrorists should be killed by Jews but Jews think all Arabs are terrorists. Here is more evidence I can find for Jews policy of killing all Arabs by Jewish rabbis.

[6] A question for Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu and his response By: Attacking innocent Arabs Question What does Jewish Law say about attacks on innocent Arabs, and how to treat Arabs about whom we are unsure if they have participated in crimes and want to kill us or merely want to live in peace? Response I don't know if there are innocent Arabs now. Almost all of them are partners to the murder of innocents, including women and infants, or partners in preparing nail bombs to injure children. They are partners to incitement, whether implicit or public.

[7] Should righteous non-Jews be killed? By: Rabbi Shlomo Aviner Question We rail against the destruction and murder of innocents caused by terrorists in our country. But how is this protest compatible with what Jewish rabbis have taught us about “the duty to kill righteous non-Jews?” Is there a double standard between us and them? Answer It is true that our sages have taught us about the duty “to kill righteous non-Jews.” Anti-Semites have used this as a weapon against us for ages to accuse us of aggression and bloodshed, which is completely at odds with our nature… About 700 years ago, there was a debate between the apostate Nikolai Donin and Rabbi Yehiel. The latter responded that this saying was used in times of war. When you face an enemy, you do not need to discern whether as an individual he is a righteous person, for he is coming to kill you. Arise to kill him first who comes to kill you.

[8] During the days of Oslo, people, including Israelis, talked about the two-state solution, or if they did not like that, the one-state solution. But no one, except Hamas and Meir Kahane's Kach party, talked about the elimination of populations. Now that Oslo has come undone, however, certain Israelis (and Sharon has not divorced himself from them) have begun once again to contemplate what was started in 1948: actually getting rid of the Palestinians, moving them out. The plan, which is now euphemistically called "transfer," seems more plausible today than it did then, because of Israel's incomparably superior firepower. " Abdel Qadir 04:19, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Abdel, this is a wikipedia article on Population transfer, which contrasts with a wikipedia article of Genocide, and ethnic cleansing. I hope you have a look at them.

Guy Montag

The Population transfer article says, "Given the logistics of a forced "transfer," it is widely thought of as a euphemism for ethnic cleansing, which in turn, carries the connotations of violence and genocide." This is true. Since 1948, Israel tries to force Palestinians to leave Palestine by violence and genocide. Abdel Qadir 04:19, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You opinions that these are euphemisms are one thing, but you need to find a serious party or group which proposes a "transfer solution" that involves killing the Palestinians as well. Kach never talked about killing, just about transfer, and in any event was banned by the Israeli government as racist. Jayjg 04:24, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What does "forced transfer" mean? It means deportation of all Arabs using violence. If Palestinians refuse the Jews orders to leave, what is the result? Killing them. It is very clear. Forced transfer means leave Jews land or die. Same as Hamas says leave Arab lands or die. They are the same policy. I already gave evidence of Rabbis Yosef, Eliyahu, and Aviner saying Kill the Arabs. Jews are big murderers as Hamas. Same as same. Abdel Qadir 04:41, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As the descendent of victims of forced transfer (from Turkey to Greece), I can fairly clearly say that it is not synonymous with genocide. I can't particularly approve of it, but we're talking about two different things. --Delirium 04:43, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

This may be your opinion, but they are not synonymous. Unless they state they plan to kill Arabs, it's just your opinion. Jayjg 04:48, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What does "forced" mean? Abdel Qadir 04:50, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pick them up, put them on buses, drive them over the border. Jayjg 04:56, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And if the people refuse Jews orders to leave their homeland, what kind of force are Jews using? Abdel Qadir 05:03, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm only speculating, but I imagine restraining them in some way. Jayjg 05:04, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Delirium, there is no agreement on the meaning of genocide. If one believes that the Anatolian Greeks represented a distinct culture which differed from the dominant one in today's Greece, then the "population transfer" was absolutely genocide. The Anatolian Greek culture was extinguished; it no longer exists, as a direct result of the policy of the Turkish state. What is left is Greeks, in the Hellenic Republic and in the diaspora, with "-oglou" names. (FWIW, my familily is not Anatolian but Boeotian....)

If you believe that there is a Palestinian nation, then causing that nation to cease to exist, whether by massacre or by "population transfer", can be understood as genocide.

The problem is that genocide is normally taken to mean "a moral crime of the same order as the Holocaust", rather than used in its literal senses, and that is where politics and extreme passions get involved... —Tkinias 07:35, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, and that makes the claim that transfer solutions imply killing even more difficult to make. Those proposing transfer of Arabs simply state transfer; these groups no-where advocate killing them as part of the transfer, and as yet there has been no evidence they do. Jayjg 18:04, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From a legal point of view, mass deportation is treated as a crime against humanity - a very serious war crime, but a step down from genocide in terms of seriousness. Genocide is clearly defined as the physical annihilation of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. See the statutes of the International Criminal Court at http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/icc/statute/part-a.htm , which says:

"For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack: ...

(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;"

The statute goes on to say:

" "Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law."

So it would not be correct to describe a mass deportation of Arabs or Jews as genocide. Previous posters have pointed out (correctly I think) that such a deportation would be a bloody business. But even if people were killed in the process of deportation (as happened in Kosovo) that would not constitute genocide - the killings would be secondary to the main goal of deportation. If, on the other hand, the main goal was to kill people rather than deport them (as happened in Bosnia), that would be genocide. -- ChrisO 19:23, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would not dispute the ICC's definition in legal terms; I was referring to the way the word is commonly (nonlegally) used, or its "dictionary" definition. ICC's definition is probably more appropriate in this context. —Tkinias 21:59, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All very interesting, but the fact remains that there are still no citations of relevant Israeli groups supporting mass killing of Arabs to remove them from Israel. Jayjg 04:44, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

None that I am aware of. The article should distinguish between a "population transfer" which would be likely to involve heavy loss of life and an explicit policy of extermination; they are not identical. —Tkinias 04:59, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's not so clear to me that population transfer would require a heavy loss of life. Jayjg 05:01, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's hard to see how it wouldn't. It's not as though the population being "transferred" would go without a fight; even if the Israeli authorities attempted to minimize casualties, there would be lots of fighting. I'm not sure that the Arab states would be able to remain uninvolved, either. It might be suicide for Mubarak, Assad, and Abdullah to stay out. —Tkinias 05:13, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I don't see how it could be practically managed from any number of perspectives. Any transfer solution would undoubtedly get some international action, and since it involves Palestinians, that action would happen a lot quicker than, say, the Darfur conflict. That said, the proponents of this view seem to have some naive notion that they can accomplish these things quite easily, and without bloodshed. Jayjg 05:20, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tkinias,

"If one believes that the Anatolian Greeks represented a distinct culture which differed from the dominant one in today's Greece, then the "population transfer" was absolutely genocide."

I do not think this is a correct example nor do I think it applies to this conflict. I stand by only the literal meaning of genocide, meaning the deliberate physical destruction of an ethnic group.

These terms do not apply to voluntary or forced transfer of populations in the Middle East conflict for various reasons.

1. Jordan, whose Palestinian population outnumbers the "East Bankers" is a de-facto Palestinian state.
2. Palestinian Arabs living in the West Bank were citizens of Jordan until 1988 when Jordan renounced its claim to the West Bank.
3. The lives of Jordanian Palestinian Arabs and "West Bank" live in an arbitrary political separation which is very short lived in nature. Most Palestinian Arabs still have numerous family members living in Jordan.

Jayjg and Tkinias,

I understand that there is a fine line between transfer, whether forced or voluntary, and ethnic cleansing, but you must understand that supporters of transfer, in its many different forms and variations, have "road maps" on how to achieve it much like the international community with its various and I would characterize, naivepeace initiatives. In fact, just 50 years ago population transfer was seen as a humanitarian solution to ethnic tensions. The UN has used it to solve the Cyprus problem and the Allies used it to resettle Germans from Poland to Germany to stop any conflict from springing up in the future.

There are many different transfer solutions. Some include only transfering political sovereignty of Palestinian Arab residents from Israel to Jordan. Others include stages that involve wiping out the terrorist inferstructure and then buying land from Palestinian Arab owners. Others include a total clampdown on terrorists to allow for an orderly evacuation to Jordan (the West Bank is about 30 miles in length). I do not preclude that there would be difficulties in any of these solutions, but I see it as the authentic 2 state solution that doesnt make Israel give up the heart of its ancient patrimony, while allowing Palestinian Arabs a state and destroy chances for ethnic strife in the future. I believe that there is a way to implement this with as little violence as possible and with an eye to the future which involve the reality of the situation. Neither a binational state, nor an Arab enclave in the West Bank tell me that strife would be solved without physical seperation called for in a transfer solution.

Best Regards,

Guy Montag

OK, stop it already!

We have two reverts now, one is [9] by Jayjg and the other is [10], by Alberuni. Both are claiming their versions are NPOV.

Firstly, the paragraph:

"The idea is, as with virtually every other aspect of the conflict, immensely controversial. It has been around for decades with relatively little impact, but in 2003 the looming demographic crisis (for Israeli Jews) of a majority Arab population in Israel-Palestine brought the binational proposition back to centre stage."

This needs to be completely rephrased. No more adding paranthetical text, OK? This is a POV statement no matter which way you look at it.

Secondly, there seems to be a dispute about adding the word "occupied" to the text. Can some explain why this should/should not be included?

I'm going to try to stop a revert war before it happens. I'd rather not have to lock the page on this one. I'm sure we can work this one out, OK? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:41, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What do a half dozen insertions of the word "occupied" before "territories" add to this article, besides excess verbiage and an attempt to make a political point? We know which territories are intended, and the article never seemed to need the word in it for the whole year since it was created, why did the suspiciously new editor suddenly feel the word needed to be added so many times on Nov 4? Second, there are no Jewish transfer groups which advocate killing the Arabs, so this kind of POV interpretation won't fly. Jayjg 03:06, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Occupied" is the way most non-Zionists, the USA and the UN view the Occupied Territories. Only extremist Zionists who seek to annex more Arab land to Israel have the gall to call the land "disputed" territories or simply territories. The fact that millions of non-Jews are living under the military occupation of the racist Jewish state is eminently relevant to the issue of a binational solution. We've been over the Zionist revisionist manipulation of the language of occupation repeatedly. See Occupation_of_the_Palestinian_territories#Terminology.

There is no looming demographic "crisis" except from the perspective of Zionist bigots who discriminate against non-Jews and consider non-Jews a threat to the Jewish character of their racist - er, "democratic" Jewish state. As usual for Wikipedia, the article is written from that extremist Zionist persepective. Does the growing population of Palestinians pose a crisis for Palestinians, or anyone else? No. It is only a "looming crisis" for Zionist bigots who fear that their diminishing proportion will highlight the apartheid nature of their racist Jewish state. How does one NPOV that section except to explain that this is the Zionist perspective - or delete it entirely? Of course, if the "looming crises" reference is to be kept, we can always add the Palestinian perspective of the crisis posed by the usurpation of Palestinian land by 1 million ostensibly Jewish Russian refugees in the 1990's and the expansion of Israeli occupation colonies in the form of Jewish settlements in illegally occupied land. Oh that's right, "there is no occupation".

As for Jayjg's refusal (as usual) to acknowledge that Jewish extremist groups would like to kill all the Arabs, why did he never address the quotes from three rabbis provided above?[11] [12] [13]. --Alberuni 03:46, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alberuni, there was absolutely no need to go on and on about "Zionist bigots". That's not helpful. It's also not helpful to get sidetracked about how "as usual for Wikipedia, the article is written from that extremist Zionist perspective". To be honest, I couldn't give a rats arse about that issue because its getting way offtrack and is getting pretty close to trolling/flaming. Your phrasing will only draw heat to this article, and I advise you to stop using terms such as "Zionist bigot". Also, what does Jayjg's supposed refusal to acknowledge extremist groups want to kill all Arabs have to do with either of the points I raised? There seems to be some sort of disconnect from the things I'm asking, and I'd kindly ask you to Stay On Topic.

Now, after all that, it appears that the reason you're objecting to the removal of the word "occupation" is because most of the rest of the world uses this terminology, while Zionists appear to avoid using the term. In this case it's hard to work out a compromise. Using the word "occupied" in the article may give the article an appearance that we are endorsing this viewpoint when we are in fact not doing this at all. If we take it out it might seem that we are opposing this viewpoint, which again we are not doing at all.

With regards to the "looming crisis" phrasing, this is indeed unfortuneate. I'm going to try rephrasing this totally to try to work around the problem. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:26, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've been thinking that the first lead section phrase should be changed from:

a Zionist "transfer solution", which involves politically annexing the territories to Israel and deporting the Palestinian population to other Arab countries, and

to something more specific (forgive me ignorance here):

a Zionist "transfer solution", which involves politically annexing the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to Israel and deporting the Palestinian population to other Arab countries, and

This is more specific about what territories are being discussed. I think it would be helpful and it would bypass the whole "occupied territories" phrasing. I haven't done it yet because I'm not sure if I'm offbase on what territories are being discussed here (though that clearly indicates that someone who has no knowledge of the subject would find it hard to know what is being talked about in this article!) - Ta bu shi da yu 09:46, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ta bu shi da yu, your change was fine in theory, but in fact Jews still are a majority in Israel and the territories. It is possible they will not be in several years; I've changed the text to reflect that. As for "occupied", the question remains why the word had to suddenly be inserted a half dozen times into the article after it survived perfectly fine for over a year without it. Does it add any information we don't already know? Or is it just excess verbiage being used to insert a POV on a contentious point? Jayjg 16:58, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your change to the minority Jewish Israeli phrasing seems good, and addresses the issue of making the statement NPOV. I think this should be resolved now. With regards to the "occupied" status, I don't think it would be fair to say that it's just excessive verbiage. This genuinely seems to be a position held by many, even though Israeli Jews prefer not to use the term. However, as it's a controversial and POV wording that is disputed by other parties, IMO a totally different phrasing should be used instead of "territories" or "occupied territories" should be used. This would also help an outsider who is reading about this issue who knows nothing about the subject to understand what territories are being discussed. I had no idea until I read the talk page and was pointed to the occupation article (which I'd read before, but had forgotten about). Perhaps a brief section on what is meant by territories that uses summary form to explain the controversy to outsiders would be helpful? A link to the occupation article could be provided at the start of the lead section. What do people think? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:18, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The links have already been addressed; to begin with, one of the statements has already been clarified as meaning something else. More importantly, which of these Rabbis are associated with movements proposing transfer solutions? I believe the answer is none. The claim is that there are groups advocating transfer solutions which also advocate killing Arabs. Finding a group advocating a transfer solution, and then finding an un-related Jew who says Arabs should be killed, is not the same thing. As for use of the word "occupied", there are many different terms for the territories (beyond the few you've mentioned), yet your response failed to address the salient point, which was that the recent addition of the word "occupation" a half dozen times added no new information to the article that was not already known, but merely added excess verbiage for political purposes. Finally, the "looming crisis" issue can be trivially dealt with by some sort of "what they view as" disclaimer. Jayjg 03:54, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You claimed that Rabbi Yosef was misquoted and actually meant kill all the Arab terrorists, not all the Arabs. He misspoke himself, sure. You never addressed the quotes from Rabbi Eliyahu or Aviner. These are Zionist rabbis who espouse to their followers, including young Israeli soldiers, the use of lethal violence against all Arabs because "I don't know if there are innocent Arabs now. Almost all of them are partners to the murder of innocents, including women and infants, or partners in preparing nail bombs to injure children." This is no different from Hamas espousing the killing of all Israelis because they are all involved with the occupation. Therefore, the description of the Zionist and Islamist one state solution shpould use parallel language instead of imposing your biased Zionist POV that only the Islamist side calls for killing and expulsion of the other. They both do. You are either in denial or you are simply lying. Your blathering occupation sophistry is tedious and self-serving as usual. --Alberuni 04:05, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Which one-state organizations are they the head of? Hamas is a one-state organization, and it's charter talks about killing Jews. Which similar organization does Eliayhu or Aviner run? The question here is not whether Jews have made such statements, but rather these sentiments are part of the official platform of Zionist one-state solution organizations. Remember, this is an article about Binational solutions, and is being contrasted with one-state solution. Please try to stay on topic. Jayjg 16:58, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Two Changes

I put back "(for Israeli Jews)" since that's clearly an appropriate qualification.

I removed "killing" the (entire) Jewish population, since not even Palestinian Islamic Jihad advocates that, even as they kill individual Jews as part of their attempt to destroy the state of Israel. The difference here is between "it is permissible to kill Jewish civilians to help destroy the state of Israel" or even "our goal is to deport all Jews in Palestine on pain of death" and "our goal is to kill all Jews in Palestine". —Ashley Y 04:38, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)

I accept your compromise edit. --Alberuni 04:55, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I quote from the Hamas covenant: Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem). [14] Jayjg 05:08, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In other words, the struggle will involve killing Jews. The same document says "It [the Islamic Resistance Movement] strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine, for under the wing of Islam followers of all religions can coexist in security and safety where their lives, possessions and rights are concerned." —Ashley Y

In my view it is not just stating the struggle will involve killing Jews, it is advocating doing so, and this is a significant difference. Do you see it differently? Jayjg 17:06, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I still haven't read your excuses and disavowals of Rabbis Eliyahu and Aviner, Zionist rabbis calling for death to the Arabs in Eretz Yisrael in the same way Hamas calls for death to the Israelis occupying Palestine. Zionism = Islamism, Jayjg. Two sides of the same coin; religious nationalism. Your partisan biased editing is obvious to all. --Alberuni 05:22, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hamas is a group trying to create a one-state solution by destroying Israel and ethnically cleanse the land; killing Jews is part of their charter. Which one-state solution groups do Eliyahu and Aviner run or represent? I still haven't heard an answer to that question. Jayjg 05:29, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Zionist one state solution, Jayjg. Eretz Yisrael. The one supported by people like you who refer to the Occupied Territories as "disputed". --Alberuni 05:32, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What is the name of the group or groups? Who are their spokespeople? Where can I read their platforms? What do Eliyahu and Aviner have to with them? I'd like some hard evidence that such a group advocates killing Arabs please, rather than this constant run-around and obfuscation. Jayjg 16:49, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Albiruni and Jayjg, we need to recognize that just as Islam and Judaism are not monolothic faiths, Zionism and Islamism are not monolithic ideologies. There are indeed versions of Zionism which believe in an exclusively Jewish state in Israel, as there are versions of Islamism which desire the conquest and Islamization of places like Iberia (al-Andalus). On the other hand, there are versions of Zionism which accept a multiethnic Israel/Palestine, and there are versions of Islamism which advocate religious-based government for Muslims but do not seek to impose this on non-Muslims. Zionism is not inherently racist any more than all nationalisms might be, nor is Islamism inherently violent any more than all conservative politico-religious movements might be. Please bear this in mind. —Tkinias 17:54, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your point is well taken, but frankly, I am not here to debate Zionism vs. Islamism, as it is not the topic of this page, nor is Wikipedia a soapbaox, which is why I will continue to avoid rising to that bait. The page is about the Binational solution, and it was felt (in passing) that binational solutions should be contrasted with groups promoting one-state solutions. My contention was that some Islamist one-state groups support the idea of killing Jews to achieve that "one-state", but that Zionist one-state groups did not support the idea of killing Arabs to achieve their "one-state". The oppposing contention is that both types of groups support killing as a means of achieving their objectives. Now, I haven't brought evidence of various imams making speeches or rulings regarding killing Jews in Israel, thought there are certainly many of those. Rather, I have brought an example of an Islamist one-state solution group (Hamas) which explicitly discusses in its charter the killing of Jews. All I'm really asking for is similar evidence from a similar Zionist one-state solution group which explicitly suports the killing of Arabs. Random quotes culled from various Rabbis is not that, in my view. What are your thoughts? Jayjg 18:25, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I thought we had already come to a conclusion that we are not here to force a point of view on this article or any article in wikipedia. In our long discussion (which resulted in the thread being locked), certain idealogues were arguing if both the Hamas "solution" and the transfer solution were equal in methodology. After two days of discussion, we had come to the agreement that no it is not, because no collective Israeli group support genocide but at most forced transfer. We have also found that Hamas as a collective group, supports genocide if Jews do not want to leave their land and succumb to an Islamic dictatorship. This bickering has got to stop now. This article is not a forum to preach your rabid anti Zionist propaganda, nor is this a place to promote Zionism. Those of you who cannot accept anything other than your point of view, should go to a forum where you can preach to whomever you want. Wikipedia is an educational forum which prides itself on neutrality, or at least consensus and unreasonable insistance that you POV be included exclusively to another is not what this website is about.

Lets get this sorted out. Zionists and moderates will not accept the term occupied territory on any grounds, because the word precludes a POV. It is not argued that the territories are disputed between two groups, and as a neutral website that does not take sides, it is not up to us to decide who it belongs too but too let the reader decide for themselves. All that matters to us is that two sides with legitimate arguments claim these territories. This makes them "disputed." I would expect (and I speak as a Jewish nationalist who wants a homogenous Jewish state) that people on this forum to object equally to those that claim the territories to be liberated. Neither the term "occupied" nor "liberated" should be accepted as relating to this conflict because they argue for a POV. "Disputed", if an adjective is too be used behind the noun "territories", is the most NPOV that I know of that precludes no POV except that of an observer who sees two sides fighting over these territories.

Other people believe that the term disputed is biased, and although I disagree with them profusely, I fully understand the difficulty it takes to compromise on what you see as the only truth.

In that case we might as well use the term territories without any adjectives, or just specific geographic areas such as West Bank and Gaza. I dont like the term West Bank because I do not believe it is historically accurate, and in other forums I would refer to it as Judea and Samaria. But because this is a forum of neutrality, I agree to compromise on my own POV. I suggest everyone learns this word: Compromise.

--Guy Montag

Let's see: the extremist Zionist position is "forced transfer". The extremist Palestinian position is "genocide if Jews do not want to leave their land". How are these two things actually different? —Ashley Y 03:03, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

Ashley,

We have already had a discussion over these terms with Abdel Qadir, in fact this thread was locked because of a revert war I and others had with him as he didnt understand the difference between population transfer and genocide.

Please take a look at these definitions before we get into another revert war.

Thanks, Guy Montag

I'm not denying there's a difference between forced population transfer and genocide. But there's no difference between forced population transfer and what Hamas is advocating: whether or not Hamas uses the g-word, both amount to precisely "we will kill you if you do not move". The Deir Yassin massacre is for instance a good example of "forced transfer". —Ashley Y 08:01, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

Ashley,

I dont want to go on a tangent relating to this discussion but once again, I sense confusion over the subject. There are clear differences between population transfer, genocide and ethnic cleansing and Deir Yassin had to do with neither.

From the link:

"The Deir Yassin massacre took place following a battle in the town of Deir Yassin on April 9, 1948, during the Israeli War of Independence. The massacre occurred during Jewish attempts to break the siege of Jerusalem (imposed by raids of Arab irregular forces upon the sole Tel-Aviv-Jerusalem road)."

Population transfer is the transfer of one population, either through treaty, or incentive, voluntary or involuntary, from one place to another with the object of settling ethnic conflict in the present or future. Genocide is an action, the planned collective murder of an entire ethnic group for who they are and in many cases, no matter where they are. In Population transfer, murdering the population is not a tactic, other forceful means are used, such as restrictive laws, but not violence, in ethnic cleansing, sporadic massacres are used as a tactic, because the cleansing is not orderly enough or well planned and in many cases, in a state of war between ethnic groups. Bosnia is a good example of ethnic cleansing (both Serbs and Albanian terrorists were culpable of the tactic.) Genocide can be seen in Rwanda in 1994 and the Holocaust, and Population transfer can be seen in the large movement of Muslims and Hindus from Pakistan to India (and vice versa) during the establishment of both states.

Hamas sees either genocide or ethnic cleansing as legitimate methods too settle the conflict, while the most "extreme" on the Israeli Right advocate forced population transfer and consider violent resettlement or even genocide as beyond the pale.

I hope this helps,

Guy Montag

Sorry to be going over this again, but I think my point is subtly different from Abdel Qadir's.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that not even the most extreme on the Israeli Right advocate violence against those Palestinians who would resist leaving their land. Is this correct?

As for the Deir Yassin massacre, "it greatly stimulated Palestinian Arab refugee flight (see Palestinian Exodus)" (from link). Are you saying this was not the intention of the Irgun and Lehi forces? —Ashley Y 10:27, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

Ashley,

The intentions of the Irgun and Lehi was to break a blockade erected by Arab fighters to cut of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

[Deir Yassin] was an integral, inseparable episode in the battle for Jerusalem... [Arab forces] were attempting to cut the only highway linking Jerusalem with Tel Aviv and the outside world. It had cut the pipeline upon which the defenders depended for water. Palestinian Arab contingents, stiffened by men of the regular Iraqi army, had seized vantage points overlooking the Jerusalem road and from them were firing on trucks that tried to reach the beleaguered city with vital food-stuffs and supplies. Dir Yassin, like the strategic hill and village of Kastel, was one of these vantage points. In fact, the two villages were interconnected militarily,reinforcements passing from Dir Yassin to Kastel during the fierce engagement for that hill.

- Abba Eban, Background Notes on Current Themes - No.6: Dir Yassin (Jerusalem: Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Information Division, 16 March 1969)

...This Arab village in 1948 sat in a key position high on the hill controlling passage on the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem road. Those villagers were no different than other nearby Arab villagers who were heavily armed, hostile and aggressive. They also hosted a battle group from the Iraqi army. They had incessantly attacked Jewish convoys trying to supply food and medical supplies to Jerusalem which was under siege and cut-off by Arab armies in linkage with those same villagers. They were killing many Jews. Deir Yassin was a staging area for the villagers and regular army from various Arab armies. They were not innocents as proclaimed by the Arab nations or the Jewish Revisionists.

- from Jewish Historical Revisionists, by Emanuel A. Winston, a Middle East Analyst & commentator

The Irgun wanted to break the blockade and get relief to the city. It was not their intention to stimulate a mass exodus of Palestinian Arabs but that was the effect. It is an easy mistake to make when seeing a correllation between two related actions, but it is important to understand that correllation does not mean causation. There are many theories on why the Arabs fled. I am sure it had to do with war time Arab propaganda and fear that the Jews might do to the Arab what the Arabs have done at much more frequent times then the the Israeli side ever had. But I digress. I do not wish to sidetrack this into to a mildly related topic, especially to the dubious evidence that a massacre took place, but yes, the Arabs fled after hearing of a disasterous battle in Deir Yassin no doubtbly called a massacre (much like the debunked "massacre" in Jenin). I am sure propoganda from both sides ( the Haganah embellished the attack just as much as the Arab armies since the Irgun/Lehi never liked the Haganah because of their cooperation with the British against them and Haganah didnt participate in the fighting) the Irgun and Lehi would take all the blame while having the positive effect of Arabs fleeing.

As for the Deir Yassin Massacre article, after we are done with this discussion, I will have to focus on it and change some POV mistakes.

P.S. I like the new revision, it just might work.

Hope this helps, Guy Montag

I think that the changes made are not a bad stab at compromise. Ashley Y must be congratulated for giving it a shot. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:08, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ashley wrote:

"If I understand you correctly, you are saying that not even the most extreme on the Israeli Right advocate violence against those Palestinians who would resist leaving their land. Is this correct?"

I consider myself a representative of the Israeli Right, I support population transfer and I know many individuals who are sympathizers, supporters or members of Kach or members of the National Union /National Religious Party in Israel. At no point in any of my readings and conversations with the most militant members of Kach did I even hear them mention genocide. They just want the Arabs to leave (most advocate Jordan due to it having a majority Palestinian Arab population) Israel so they can rebuild a Jewish commonwealth.

Regards, Guy Montag

Oh I understand that. But no-one, not Kahane or anyone that I can find, ever discusses how you force four or five million unwilling people off the land they're living on. It's always carefully left unspecified and focus instead is made on (largely irrelevant IMO) voluntary incentives. Hence the "somehow". —Ashley Y 02:36, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

Palestinian Arab Groups that support Genocide against Israeli Jews

Thia ia quotes from Rantisi. The late Rantisi himself affirmed: "By God, we will not leave one Jew in Palestine." Nor did Rantisi leave doubt about what would become of these Jews. Asked by an interviewer "what do you see ultimately happening to the people [of] Israel?" Rantisi replied: "They killed thousands of Palestinians.... so I think it is just to do with them as they did with us."

Nor are Hamas's intended targets limited to Israeli Jews. Hamas's covenant boasts: "HAMAS regards itself the spearhead and the vanguard of the circle of struggle against World Zionism [and] the fight against the warmongering Jews." It makes clear that there is to be no end of killing: "The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.'"

(the above comment is from User:Guy Montag according to the page history —Tkinias 23:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC))

Wrong article?

For NPOV purposes, I think in this article we ought to avoid making any reference to killing or genocide. I would propose that the Binational solution simply be compared to the ideas coming from both sides that desire an ethnically or religiously homogeneous state—without getting into the methods proposed to achieve those objectives. This article is about an alternative to the other ideas, and has gotten bogged down in arguing about those other ideas. This argument should be going somewhere else IMO. —Tkinias 23:44, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I believe it is important to understand what methods different sides will use to achieve their goals. It is not up to us to equate two different goals when the methodology is in question. For example, people have different ideas on what peace constitutes. Both Peace Now and the Jewish Right have different versions of what peace is. The Left and the Right both want to solve poverty but they differ on methods. The differences in methods is what distinguishes different idealogies from each other and this is why it is important to distinguish Hamas, whose methods are questionable (to say the least) and the Right whose methods are different.

Guy Montag

That may be, but this is not the article to present those arguments. This article is about the Binational solution, which is not the plan of the Jewish Right or of Hamas AFAIK. A comparison of their ideologies or methods belongs somewhere else. —Tkinias 02:45, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

More contentious sections

"an Islamist solution, which involves the military defeat of Israel, deporting and/or killing the Jewish population, and replacing Israel with an Islamic state." seems to be flipping between adding or removing the bit "deporting and/or killing the Jewish population" bit.

If we must have this in the article, I believe that we need to expand this bit to who has said this. Even in the lead section. And if not all people who support the deportment of Jews support their killing, then this must be noted. Can we have a brief response under my comment of who has stated (with sources) that Jews should be killed? And if there are other people who want Jews to be deported but not wish for them to be killed can we also have them here to (again with sources)? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:14, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think it's clear that not all those who want an Islamic state want extermination of the Jews. A strict, traditional Islamic state would extend dhimmi status to Jews (and Christians); killing them would be counter to Islamic law. I don't know the individual spokesmen well enough to cite who has said what at what time, but given that the eliminationist version violates both law and tradition, I'm sure it has its opponents. —Tkinias 23:12, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Somehow.....On threat of death

The Zionist and Islamist one state solutions are identical mirror images of each other. Both extremists intend to rid the Holy Land of the other by killing, deportation, and forcing flight of the other. The article currently as it is currently written:

• a Zionist "transfer solution", which involves politically annexing the territories to Israel and forcibly deporting the entire Arab population to other Arab countries somehow, and
• an Islamist solution, which involves the military defeat of Israel, forcibly deporting the entire Jewish population possibly on threat of death, and replacing Israel with an Islamic state.

The article as it should be edited:

• a Zionist "transfer solution", which involves politically annexing the territories to Israel and forcibly deporting the entire Arab population to other Arab countries, and
• an Islamist solution, which involves the military defeat of Israel, forcibly deporting the entire Jewish population, and replacing the Jewish state with an Islamic state. --Alberuni 15:52, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your formulation is incorrect for two reasons; 1) it ignores the explicit statements of Islamist groups about killing the Jews to achieve their goals, and 2) the circumlocution "Jewish state" of "Israel" or more simply "it" implies that the current Jewish state is similar to the envisaged Islamic state. Jayjg 23:44, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The most extreme Arabs mention killing Jews who won't leave, while the most extreme Jews claim they can deport Arabs without threat of death. I agree that this latter claim is unlikely, and that in practice the same methods would be needed to effect deportation of either side, but there does seem to be a difference in rhetoric. On the other hand, there's very little chance of the former happening, whereas the latter is a serious possibility (and arguably merely the final step in a process started in 1947). —Ashley Y 02:43, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

There is no difference in rhetoric. The quote that Jayjg took out of context was a citation from the Qur'an that Hamas uses (also out of context) to justify the killing of Jews. Zionists use similar tactics (that's where Hamas learned it) by quoting the Torah and Talmud to justify the killing of non-Jews. "We must treat the Arabs like the Amalekites" is a common sentiment among extremist Zionists. There are quotes from Zionist rabbis on this page that are indistinguishable from the logic of Hamas clerics. The denial of Zionism's genocidal intent and practice is similar to Nazis who denied the Holocaust and Final Solution even as they conducted it. Zionists claim to be ethical and humanitarian while routinely killing hundreds of children, imprisoning thousands of adults and oppressing millions of non-Jews in the name of their Jewish supremacist ideology and state. --Alberuni 02:55, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The difference in rhetoric is between the groups advocating "one-state" solutions. Please keep in mind this is what we are dealing with, not with statements by anyone on any topic. Which Israeli "one-state solution" group explicitly advocates killing Arabs? Also, please recall that Wikipedia is not a soapbox.Jayjg 03:01, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is unacceptably POV to present only the Islamic option as involving threats of death. Extremists on both sides have invoked genocide and religious zealotry. The mainstream rejects it. A statement stipulating the dangers of both options is the NPOV way to acknowledge the dangers. --AladdinSE 00:45, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

It is unacceptably POV to make claims which have no evidence. Provide evidence that leaders of the Israeli "deportation" side advocate killing Arabs. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unacceptably POV? You expect to get away with "unspecified means" for the Transfer option, as if enormous death was in any way avoidable, and you want threat of death to be included in the Islamist? It is not even close to the modern binational Islamist mainstream solution. Oh, and here's your source [15]. --AladdinSE 04:21, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Yosef is not a political leader, and he is not advocating a political solution, and his views are not part of any party platform. On the other hand, a quick reading of the Hamas charter makes their platform quite clear. Please note the difference between official party positions and personal sentiments of non-politicians quoted out of context. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:35, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He is as much a political leader as Amin_al-Husayni was. Of course he was advocating a political solution. Just because it is cloaked in religious self-righteousness does not mean that it is any less political or any less of a "solution." This is really an extraordinary breach of NPOV. The mass forced expulsion of Arabs by "means unspecified" is such a whitewash of the absolutely unavoidable massive death toll. This will not stand. The Hamas platform, which you have not elaborated on, is not the ruling document of the PA anymore than the Shaas manifesto is the guiding document of Israel. There are much more extreme factions on both sides. Trying to paint one as a mainstream Islamist solution is ridiculous. --AladdinSE 00:35, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

He was the "spiritual leader" of a political party, and he was making a speech that had no impact on the official policy of anyone. Shas is not a militant organization, with guns, bombs, Qassam rockets. Hamas, on the other hand, has all of these, and has the destruction and death of Jews as part of its official charter. It is an "extraordinary breach of NPOV" to pretend there is any equivalence. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:51, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Popes were the "spiritual leaders" of medieval Europe. Several of them preached holy war against the Muslim heathens in the Holy Land. Many European monarchs answered the call, and the resulting crusades led to the slaughter and victimization of the entire Levant. It's dismaying to hear you be an apologist for a man like Yosef. Making a speech that did not impact on official policy? Who do you think the people he incites will vote for? The dove of peace? Shas is not a militant organization, but it is a hawkish right wing member of a governent that does have many many more guns and bombs than Hamas does, and has killed many more Palestinians then Hamas has killed Israelis. Of course Israeli supporters want no comparison at all. Being NPOV means offering comparisons and allowing the readers to decide on their validity. I have never been a fan of Hamas, they betrayed themselves when they began blowing up kids on bus stops. This does not mean that their opponents, the Israeli occupation, are angels either. State terror is just as despicable as terror by militant groups. --AladdinSE 06:29, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I am not an apologist for Yosef's statements; rather, I am pointing out their irrelevance in this context. Shas is a political party (and "right-wing" is a vast oversimpliciation of its stance), which has been at times part of the Israeli government. However, Yosef does not set party policy; moreover, Shas party policy is not government policy. The Israeli government does not countenance suggestions that Arabs should be killed, and has recently dismissed from government MKs who even suggested that they should be transferred. The party with the views closest to (though not as extreme as) the views of Hamas was Kach, and it is the Israeli government that declared Kach an illegal, racist organization. On the other hand, Hamas has the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Israel as part of its official charter, and is lauded, praised, and courted by other Palestinian groups. The comparison is specious and nonsensical, and it is dismaying to hear you attempt to make it. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Such lofty words, and such wonderful PR actions by the Israeli government. Too bad about all those dead Palestinians though. Personally I think that the Israeli governemnt actually killing all these pesky Palestinians that won't stomach occupation is somehow a lot worse than KACH shooting their mouth off. There are parties in the Knesset right now advocating the ethnic cleansing of Arabs from Israel and the occupied territories. They are incited and egged on by people like Yosef. Because he holds no official position, he's irrelevant in the context of this discussion? Hardly. --08:09, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC) ( history says it was posted by AladdinSE)- Guy Montag 10:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the deaths of the Palestinians are a tragedy. The whole conflict is a tragedy, albeit on a minor scale compared to real tragedies in the world (e.g. Sudan). As for parties in the Knesset, the parties you refer to have what, one member in the Knesset? And there are also Arab parties in the Knesset who hold radically different views. In any event, Yosef is indeed irrelevant, for the reasons given above; if you can find significant Israeli parties that actually advocate murdering millions of Arabs (as Hamas explicitly does vis a vis Jews), let me know. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Please sign your last comment with the four ~~~~ "tildes" so that the innocent reader can know who is responding, and to whom the above clearly Anti-Semitic statements and blood libels (i.e. "Israeli governemnt actually killing all these pesky Palestinians" and "There are parties in the Knesset right now advocating the ethnic cleansing of Arabs from Israel") should be attributed to. Thank you for your co-operation in this matter. IZAK 08:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

IZAK, enough with the accusations of Anti-Semitism already. AladdinSE isn't anti-Semitic. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

removed

While User:Zero0000 rightly removed the section with Zionist/Islamist "transfer solutions", (somebody's idea of humor) it at least has the merit of contrasting extremes. This wouldnt normally be the case, but these extremes are routinely bandied about in public as reflexive rhetorical accusations of the other position. To some much lesser degree they represent actual "solutions", and these can be compared to historical precedents. The point is that they show the ridiculous full spectrum of political rhetoric, which, LION, plays a role in material policy, and at least gets these out of the way. -- -SV|t02:54, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here here. I had proposed the deletion of both references myself but was rebuffed amid insistance that they remain with only the Islamist option containing the cryptic threat of death reference. This is much better. --AladdinSE 13:28, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

A question about a paragraph

Here is a fragment from the text:

In the event, Begin won the election and announced (in May 1982) a formal policy of "extending state sovereignty ... over Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip" accompanied by a major expansion of Jewish settlement and the granting of "full autonomy" to the Palestinians. ...

Should this be maybe: In the event, Likud won the election, and ....

The point of the paragraph before this paragraph was about Labor vs. Likud. It is not clear then on whose side Begin was. --Oleg Alexandrov 02:33, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War

The 1973 Yom Kippur War was both a military and a political disaster for the Arabs and the Palestinians in particular. The defeat of the Arab armies prompted a fundamental political rethink among the Palestinian leadership.

Could someone please explain/expand on this? The Yom Kippur War article suggests that the war was a success for the Arabs, as they regained some territory. —Ashley Y 12:26, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)

This 1st sentence is wrong, even bizarre. The Yom Kippur War article is much more reasonable. The standard assessment is that the Yom Kippur War was a military draw or stalemate, and thus a psychological success for the Arabs, and that in the long run, politically, considering war as a continuation of diplomacy by other means, that it was a success for the Arabs, Egypt in particular. This being said, the second half of the second sentence is correct that it was the turning point that convinced the Palestinian leadership that the (conventional) military option was illusory and that it thus produced fundamental political redirection in 1974. --John Z 20:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Separate voting

From my understanding of the article, proponents of binationalism want "one person, Jewish or Arab, one vote". Has anyone proposed a Lebanese-style democracy: Voting separately according to communities and with power quotas but with a common land?

Ideas for possible revisions

As a new Wikipedian, it is with some circumspection that I enter this process, but with the object of making a good and informative page yet more so, while cautioning that my ardent personal bias in favor of a binational solution should be taken into account when reading these remarks as we strive for the goal of NPOV.

Since much effort has gone into this page already, especially as a newcomer I find it less daunting to "discuss first, and attempt reverts later." The questions both of what is important enough to include, and how to achieve NPOV, are areas where I seek guidance from the authors of this page or other more experienced people.

First, a conceptual point: while binational proposals often call for one binational state in Palestine/Israel (1922 Mandate Palestine) "from the Jordan River to the sea," a single state is not a logical requirement of binationalism, and some proposals do call for two or more binational states, for example

        A two-state proposal

As the Two-state solution page discusses, a "two-state solution" typically implies "Two States for Two Peoples," that is, one state "owed" by Palestinian Arabs, and the other by Israeli Jews. In contrast, binational proposals involve one or more states with power sharing based on political parity and recognized nationality rights for both peoples in each state.

Practically, a "two-state solution" as usually formulated implies that whatever might happen in the Palestinian state created in part or all of the 1967 territories, Israel proper within the Green Line (the pre-June 1967 borders defined by the 1949 armistice lines) would retain the status quo as a "Jewish state" with Jewish predominance both politically and demographically.

In contrast, typical binational solutions involve "a different Israel" (to quote the current page) transformed into "a state of all its citizens," with specific nationality rights for both Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews. This is the essential difference from a "two-state solution," even if the 1967 territories are organized into a separate political entity, at least for a time. The program of the National Democratic Assembly or Balad Party in Israel might lead to such a result: two states in Palestine/Israel, but not a "Two-state solution" as usually understood. Also, as is suggested in the Two-state solution entry, this approach differs radically from many binational proposals in its response to the Palestinian exodus and the question of a Palestinian right of return within the Green Line. While the "two-state solution" favors the return of those refugees of 1948 who so choose to the new Palestinian state rather than Israel proper, binational solutions often favor large-scale implementation of this right within the Green Line.

This right of return within Israel, if many 1948 refugees chose it (for example, those living in nearby Gaza or Lebanon), could greatly accelerate demographic trends toward a Palestinian Arab parity -- an outcome compatible with a binational solution based on equal partnership between the two nationalities, but not with a two-state solution based on "a strong Jewish majority" in Israel proper. Thus one argument for a binational approach is that it would permit the full implementation of refugee rights which organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch see as basic under international law.

Another conceptual distinction is between the general approach of "a secular democratic state" with equal citizenship for all, and the more specific category of binationalism, where Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews are additionally recognized as nationalities enjoying certain collective rights.

In one perspective, these categories might have various shadings and degrees of emphasis between the theme of each individual as an equal citizen, and the state as also an association of national communities. As one poster has mentioned, the "consociational" structure of Lebanon (actually bi-religious rather than binational) is one model which has been discussed and debated in the dialogue about binationalism in Palestine-Israel.

One concern of a more structured consociational style of binationalism analogous to the case of Lebanon is that it might emphasize the individual's role as a member of a specific group above the individual's rights and responsibilities as citizen of a common society and state. Also, it has been argued that strict national or religious quotas or allocations for specific government positions can interfere with flexible and responsive democracy. Thus binational proposals must seek some balance between the themes of equal citizenship ("a state of all its citizens" or "a secular democratic state") and specific nationality rights for the two peoples.

One more comment for now: the topic of binationalism as a position popular among the Palestinian citizens of Israel, and represented in the Knesset by the National Democratic Assembly or Balad party with Azmi Bishara, MK, as one noted leader, deserves at least a brief discussion, with Asad Ghanem of the University of Haifa as an important scholar and proponent of this position.

Why don't I leave it here for this note, and seek feedback before writing some further suggestions for additions to the historical presentation?

Most appreciatively,

Margo 03:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Some new info added

Just checked out this page, spend about 3 hours fixing and adding new contents. Some of the narratives seems to me to be unnecessarily long. My goal is to have a coherent view on the necessary actors and arguments without lingering too much on the historical details and intricate issues. I also add a new section on the recent developments. I think the binationalism is breathed into new life after 2003 NYRB article by Tony Judt. More discussions follows across the Atlantic, at least in the intellectual circle. Due notice is give in the new paragraph.

New references and links are also given. The old links are hopelessly out of date. I retained them for the momento's sake.

"Unreliable Sources"

The most recent edit of this article removed an "unreliable source", specifically a sentence about a poll of Israeli attitudes toward transfer of the Palestinian and Arab populations. The reference given was a link to informationclearinghoust.info. If the unreliability of the source was the problem, replacing the link with a reference to the original source, a Haaretz article about the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies poll, would have been a better edit, in my opinion.

As it turns out, I agree with removing the sentence, for another reason: it doesn't belong in this article. There are many alternatives to a Binational solution. We shouldn't begin listing them here. DRE 21:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Z-Mag

I propose that citations to z-mag be removed; it makes no more sense to cite Z-Mag (pro-Palestinian) than it does to cite Arutz-7 (pro-Israel), Zionism On The Web (pro-Israel), or Electronic Intifada (pro-Palestinian). In my opinion, none of these sources meet the reliability and neutrality criteria of Wikipedia. ← Michael Safyan 18:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

An oxymoron

A "binational state" is an oxymoron. A nation is defined as a collective that sees itself as a unique entity, and thus asserts it's right to self rule - to sovreigneity. It is obvious that no two nations can co-exist in one operating state: their very essence demands a unique nation-state. I propose to raname the article to "bi-ethnic" or "bi-cultural.--Lidless Eye 13:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It can work. The United Kingdom has lasted for hundreds of years: England + Wales + Scotland + varying bits of Ireland. Rwendland 19:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

articles name should be one state solution

The binational solution is a specific implementation of the one state solution. However, this article seems to cover all varieties of the one state solution. Therefore, I propose a move to one state solution. Anyone oppose?--Urthogie 01:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you make a good point.Doright 02:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. One-state solution is the term most commonly used. The change hasn't been made yet; I'll do it. MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Solely Jewish Character?

The second paragraph currently says: "The new state would have either secular character, or a dual Jewish-Islamic character, rather than being solely Jewish." What does Solely Jewish Character mean? What is the "character" of a state? Is this implying that the "character" of Israel's Supreme Court is not secular? Does this imply that Israel is a theocracy or not a secular state? Doright 03:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This also does not make any sense. Jewish, in the context of Israel, refers to a nationality whereas Islamic refers to a religion. -- Michael Safyan 05:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Weasel Words

Here are some examples from the article:

1. "It had a few hundred members, mostly European-born intellectuals like Buber..."
   Intellectualism is a value judgement. The term should only appear within direct quotes to other sources.
2. "...number of prominent Palestinian, Israeli and other academics and activists..."
   Prominence is also a value judgement.
3. "...there was considerable debate..."
   How much is considerable?

← Michael Safyan 17:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Query on emotive words.

I noticed that the words Islamist and Arabist are used early on; but then it talks about Israeli Jews, as opposed to Zionists. Lack of balance here ? If Islamist and Arabist are used (and they have strong political/extremist overtones), then shouldn't the word Zionist be used too? If this proposal is rejected, then perhaps it would be better to avoid Islamist and Arabist and substitute something less emotive (but I can't think of anything off hand). Just a few thoughts. Thanks. MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)