I have been interested in this debate for a long time. The truth is that there is no solution because the two sides are in direct conflict with each other. Israel, the government that is, has no real interest in peace or negotiations. The status quo is to their benefit. They have spent energy and resources putting settlers into the West Bank in what can only be described as a planned land grab. Netanyahu and his foreign minister Lieberman have no intention of negotiating with the Palestinians. If they did they would have agreed to extend the settlement freeze and keep talks going. This is a government of apartheid we are talking about.
Talking about the Palestinians agreeing to Israel's right to exist, The Arab league offered to normalize relations with Israel if they would go back to the 1967 borders. Again rejected. The Israeli's don't even call the land Palestine and deny it's existence. To them it is Judea and Samaria. Why don't we just turn the clock back thousands of years and go from there? Israel won't be appeased until they own all the land to the Jordan River.
Which brings us to the biblical connection. How often have we heard "God gave this land to us" What utter nonsense. Nothing but fables with no historical record. If you read Joshua, God told the Israeli's to kill every man, woman, and child etc. when they entered the land from exile. How ironic that one of the first genocides was perpetuated by the Israeli's.
Why the United States supports Israel, I just don't know. They killed our servicemen on the U.S.S Liberty, continually spy on us and steal our secrets, go against our wishes, deceived us on their nuclear program, refused to join non-proliferation, and now Netanyahu totally embarasses our president after their meeting. What strategic value are they to us? The U.S. should just bow out and abstain and let the United Nations vote for sanctions and an acknowledgement of a Palestinian state. The Europeans are ready to do that.
The only solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict will be a peace that is imposed on both of them and backed up by the United States and the world as a whole. The two of them will never be able to agree on a just and lasting peace.
My solution: go back to the 1967 borders, if the settlers want to live in Palestine, let them, after all that is the choice the Arabs got in 1948, at least the one's who weren't driven out or forced to flee for their lives. As for the right of return, never going to happen, but reparations should be paid tho those who lost their land and homes. Jerusalem should be a separate entity, open to all and governed by a committee of Jews, Christians, and Muslims, with United Nations oversight or an international court to decide disputes.
Note: The Israeli's will bomb Iran long before they pose a nuclear threat.
This garbage lacks any intellectual integrity whatsoever.
First, it really depends on how you define apartheid... the Israelis don't have much choice since the Arabs strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up in crowded public areas. When Israeli-Arabs sympathize with these terrorists and do it themselves, the government has a duty to its citizens to deal with them appropriately. Arabs have no record of being trustworthy, and it's inconceivable that the Jewish state should allow people who hate Jews to reign freely in Israel. Plus... in the greater political debate, a "second-class Arab-Israeli" has many more rights than first-class Arab citizens in the Arab nations. I don't hear you complaining about human rights in the Arab world. Honor killings, women's rights... where's the uproar over that?
Second, as far as the Arab League's offer, that's ridiculous. The 1967 borders don't work because... well, Israel's neighbors weren't so content with them back in '67. Any agreement has to be implementable. What on earth makes you think the Arabs will accept peace? If you want to talk about rejected offers, talk about the rejection of PM Barak's offer in 2000 when he offered up East Jerusalem and the West Bank (which was probably unimplementable anyway, but the difference is that the consequences of failure lies with the Israelis, not the Arabs). It was the best offer ever put on the table from the Arabs' point of view, and they still rejected it because it wasn't enough.
Third, your biblical criticism is logically invalid. If you deny the biblical connection to the land, then you must also deny the biblical claim of genocide in the land. You can't have it both ways. As far as your claim of fables with no historical record... that's just false. Jewish archeological records in Israel are extremely vast and well-documented, and to claim otherwise is flat-out a lie and probably hidden with anti-Semitic hatred. It's like denying the Holocaust. Shame on you.
As far as Israel's strategic importance to the United States, there are two major reasons: intelligence and democracy. Israeli intelligence is second to none, and the military cooperation between the two nations has benefited both tremendously. Moreover, however, is Israel's commitment to democratic values. There's no Arab nation that has even a whiff of democracy in it. Egyptian democracy is a left-wing fantasy. Saudi Arabia anybody?
The imposition of peace from outside derives its legitimacy from the idea of might makes right. You want to interfere with a sovereign state and impose on it - that presupposes that you can do that because you are strong. How ironic then that you charge that sovereign state with imposing its will on others. Seems like a contradiction to me. Of course you want to say that the difference is that you're "good" and they are "bad." Aside from being objectively wrong, that's hypocritical to charge Israel with using its might.
Your solution has the head-in-the-clouds mentality and could never work. Jerusalem would never survive as a separate entity. The 1967 borders failed for a reason.
I agree with you on one point: the Israelis will do all that they can to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. I don't know that bombing them will work just because Iran's nuclear operations are more spread out than Iraq or Syria, but it's not impossible to foresee such an action.
If you want to understand the Middle East conflict, you have to understand a few points:
1. The term Palestinian was invented by the PLO... before 1964, the term referred to Jews living in Israel. Check the archives if you don't believe me.
2. There are 21 Arab states that are hundreds of times larger than Israel. Israel was created to be a Jewish state; the Arabs have more than enough land for these "refugees."
3. Only with the "Palestinians" does the UN include descendents of refugees as refugees. In Sudan, Rwanda, Somalia, etc. only those who were actually displaced got refugee status. The reason there's so many refugees is that Arab states are putting pressure on Israel by refusing to allow them into their own countries. The "Palestinians" are an Arab invention used to keep political pressure on Israel.
4. Either way, Israel is legitimate. If you go by history, then Israel was certainly around well before the Arabs. If you go by the fact that the UN decided that there would be an Israel, then they're legitimate by the fact they've survived 60+ years. Arab legitimacy in the region is only by the fact that the UN originally intended that they'd be there. However, Arab aggression has de faco delegitimized their right to be there. They have no interest in coexistence with Jews.