Dear David F.,

I agree with your nice reply (accidentally posted under "Five atheist miracles").

One comment though:

<<If both the Israelis and Palestinians had been devoted to non-violence they could have formed one state in 1948 rather than being partitioned by the UN.>>

Yes, if they were devoted to non-violence then they could have done just anything.

But violence aside, what if they simply didn't want share a state?

Some of the Jews that came to Israel simply looked for refuge, others envisioned a Western-style cosmopolitan culture and others again sought a place where they will be able to fully fulfil all the Mitzvoth (commandments) of the Torah and live in its spirit.

The Arabs (who now call themselves "Palestinians") were not particularly bothered by the refugees nor by observant Jews who came to live according to the Torah - they rather feared, rebelled and rioted against the Western cosmopolitan influence that some of the Jews brought, including the exposed women which threatened their traditional values. In his book "Altneuland" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Old_New_Land), Herzl patronisingly fantasised about the Arabs kissing the hems of Jews for bringing "enlightenment" and "advancement" to them: he failed to understand why the Arabs wouldn't appreciate his well-meaning advances.

I think that if Jews and Arabs were committed to non-violence, they would have followed the example of Abram (later to become Abraham) in Genesis 13:8-9, `So Abram said to Lot, “Let’s not have any quarreling between you and me, or between your herders and mine, for we are close relatives. Is not the whole land before you? Let’s part company. If you go to the left, I’ll go to the right; if you go to the right, I’ll go to the left.”`

Dear Yuyutsu,

my response in the right place.

Neither Palestinians nor Israelis are stupid. Their culture forms them. One reason Gandhi got as far as he did was that satyagraha was part of the Indian culture. Non-violence to some degree is part of every culture. In appropriate cases it has worked even against the Nazis.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/jorgen-johansen/hitler-and-challenge-of-non-violence tells of an occasion where non-violence worked in 1943 in Nazi Berlin.

If both the Israelis and Palestinians had been devoted to non-violence they could have formed one state in 1948 rather than being partitioned by the UN.

Both Judaism and Islam have a tradition of non-violence. However, it is not as known among those groups as it is in the Indian society.

https://centerforjewishnonviolence.org/ tells about a centre for Jewish non-violence. From that site:

“Just as other traditions around the world draw from their heritage to engage in nonviolent resistance to oppression, so too do we look within our own tradition for inspiration, from Shifra and Puah’s noncooperation with Pharoah’s instruction to slay Hebrew baby boys to Honi the Circle Maker’s insistence that “he shall not be moved” until the rains fall from the sky.”

“As Jews from around the world, we are implicated by the actions of the Israeli government when it claims to act in the name of all Jews. When our name and our religion is being used in ways that we disagree with and in ways that contradict international law, it is our responsibility to speak out.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e85OG3J2gsY tells about Palestinian non-violence. From that site:

“Taghyeer Movement advances non-violence as the foundation of a Palestinian national identity and core value of Palestinian state building. Informed by the civic transformation achieved by Mhatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Nelson Mandela, Taghyeer Movement is organizing a network of Palestinian community activists and leaders. Participants in Taghyeer are committed to a non-violent end of the occupation and peaceful community building. Embracing Palestinian values and culture, we transcend the narrative of victimization, nurturing peace, Palestinian independence, and mutual security with our neighbors.

If both groups can gain enough followers there will be peace.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You wrote: "Some of the Jews that came to Israel simply looked for refuge, others envisioned a Western-style cosmopolitan culture and others again sought a place where they will be able to fully fulfil all the Mitzvoth (commandments) of the Torah and live in its spirit."

In my opinion the tension between grous 2 and 3 above means that the state will probably disintegrate with those dedicated to a Western-style cosmopolitan culture leaving and the religious Jews reaching an accommodation with the Palestinians. At least that is my hope for a peaceful solution.

Dear David F.,

I cannot discard this possibility.

While this could be your hope, I don't share it because it would mean that my family in Israel will be forced to take sides, either joining me in Australia as refugees or agreeing to live under clerical oppression. The worst part of this is that it can tear down families as some members decide to leave while others decide to stay on their land, especially since some in my family are farmers. Compared with that, peace or no-peace with the Palestinians is a minor issue. I can only hope that this doesn't happen in my lifetime or of those I love.

Dear Yuyutsu,

The utilitarian philosophy which aspires to the greatest good for the greatest number is not fair. It can condemn some to suffering for the greatest good. However, can you think of a solution for the Israel/Palestine conflict which is fairer? Both Palestinians and Israelis are diverse among themselves. I think no solution will please all of either group. From my point of view to be a refugee in a society which accepts refugees is not a terrible fate. I was born and lived most of my life in the US. I came to Australia when I retired to please my Australian wife who wanted to return home. I would rather be in the USA, but there are many worse places than Australia. If she were from Lebanon I would not have gone to Lebanon.

Dear David F.,

You probably noticed by now that I am not a utilitarian. My position in that regard is that the means are at least as important as the ends, so one should first do no evil - only then if they can afford to, they should do good.

If you ask a farmer to leave their land, including the trees they and their ancestors planted, the houses they built and where they grew and played as children, the graves of their parents, their childhood friends, their neighbours and community, their language, their customs, their calendar and everything else that is familiar - that's a big ask. Many, I suspect, would prefer to live under a clerical regime even while the do not agree with its doctrine and laws. This could mean the younger generations whose professions do not depend on land and language, forsaking their parents, leaving them behind in their old age. Even couples and siblings are likely to split over those issues - and children would suffer greatly.

The best solution I see, is first the separation of Israelis and Palestinians along the 1967 borders, under determined international pressure and using strong international guarantees and sanctions for breaking the arrangements. Those arrangements will include that Jewish settlers will be allowed, if they wish, to remain in their homes under Palestinian rule. Then [perhaps 20-30 years] later, once the conflict settles down and is no longer relevant, further divide the region into a confederation of 3-5 states, each with a distinct character, one of those suitable for cosmopolitan Jews and Arabs together.