Talk:Western Sahara

Dear Palestine "friends"
Now there is a colonized people in the Arab world that you can freak out about. But wait? Why did this article only just come into being? Why all this silence? Is the "solidarity with Palestine" about something else after all? 141.30.210.129 (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This argument is approximately as stupid as the nothing to hide argument. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't there a theorem that places an upper bound on the difference? 18:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but I don't quite understand. Will the good sir or madam please explain herself or himself? 141.30.210.129 (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Both arguments are reducible to: "Stupidly assuming that option X is the only possible explanation for situation Y, where option X entails malicious intent, clearly situation Y implies malicious intent." 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well given the fact that the Saharaui people currently has to endure many of the things that Israel is accused of doing to the Palestinians, one has to wonder why one is in the news almost all the time while the other is only a field for study of foreign policy geeks and academics with weird focuses... 141.30.210.129 (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's because, sadly, Western media don't care as much about what goes on in Africa? And I doubt that's the case just because they're paying too much attention to Israel (which they can only be doing because they're antisemites, right?). 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And how much do Western media report on Nagorno-Karabakh or the several separatist movements in Indonesia? Let's face it, unless you can get some direct Western involvement (peacekeepers, aid workers, expats etc.), good on-screen blood 'n gore pictures, and/or hosts of refugees trying to reach Europe, Western media are going to ignore most conflicts, irrespective of their ferocity and the toll they take on the local populations. It's like when national media report on a foreign disaster and always take care to point out whether any of the nation's citizens were involved. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There are about 7 billion people on the planet, and a crapload a conflicts. It is simply impossible to "fairly" report them all, even if we wanted to. Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So what you are saying is that there is disproportional attention to the Israel/Palestine issue, not necessarily because there are Jews involved, but because there are White/Western people involved, am I getting this right? 141.30.210.129 (talk) 23:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if we argued that there was disproportionate attention to Israel/Palestine (I don't agree with this assessment), a lot of the Western media coverage is actually pretty slanted to Israel's position (i.e. right to self-defense against terrorists, never question this assumption, human shields, etc). The BBC and NYT wrote disgustingly apologetic pieces a couple of months ago saying that the civilians who died in last year's conflict weren't really civilians (despite this being disputed by credible groups like PCHR and UN OCHA) reminiscent of the left-wing denial of the Srebrenica massacre. Anyways, I actually think the IP conflict gets off pretty lightly, compared to say, the issues in Iraq and Syria right now, the Gulf War, the 2003 invasion of Iraq, 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan, the Iranian nuclear deal, the Malaysian airline fiasco last year, etc. Another point, even if for argument's sake we accepted that the IP conflict gets disproportionate attention, it may be for demographic reasons. Several of the readers on the NYT for example are liberal Jews, so it'd make sense to cover a country calling itself a Jewish state to market to a certain demographic associated with such a state. And a last point, as someone raised above, Israel is considered the most Westernized country in the Middle East (Turkey is second, but with Erdogan, these distinctions are blurred), so it makes sense for a Western country involved in a conflict to attract Western media coverage the same way the US invasion of Iraq attracted coverage. This is what makes it different from Morocco, which is apart of the Arab League and is a monarchy unlike say the political structure of Israel which is more in line with Western countries. ChrisAmiss (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention that there are good reasons for why the Israeli/Palestinian conflict draws more headlines in Western media: The West has been actively involved since before the conflict even started (e.g. the British mandate in Palestine); US Presidents have played crucial roles as mediators; the conflict has been a focal point for conflicts in the oil-rich Middle East for decades; and plenty of Western media and private citizens are located in or around the conflict zone. It's not because "them are white people" (the Armenians are no less white than the Jooz, nor are the Moldovans, and how often do you hear of their conflicts?), but simply because conflicts such as WS, Nagorno-Karabakh and Transnistria don't really impact or have the immediate prospect of impacting Western lives and wallets or generating tonnes of (new) casualties/refugees that they're out of the limelight. As Carpetsmoker pointed out, media have limited resources and have to use them in a way that makes sense for a business or public service perspective and if these conflicts don't tick some important boxes in either category (e.g. Western lives and wallets, or droves of casualties/refugees) they don't make the cut. It's not about a sinister conspiracy or even some nefarious institutional racism or cultural imperialism/chauvinism as it is down to some quite mundane practical concerns. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh there is enough "legitimate criticism of Israel" in the media to go around for a century to come. From accusing The Jews Israel of murdering children to accusing the Jews Israel of controlling and manipulating the media to accusing The Jews Israel of being meddlesome and ultimately responsible for all wars in the world in the region. If you compare Israel and the diverse NGOs of mass murder on the other side to the whole Kashmir mess, which has become hot numerous times and includes the very real possibility of the second most populous country on earth getting into a nuclear war with a country founded on the idea of being Muslim, one can't help but wonder, why Israel gets so much attention. Nor are the human rights abuses Israel is frequently accused of worse than those that have happened in Guantanamo or China. But don't take the idea of disproportionate focus from me take it from this guy on YouTube who spoke to CNN about the issue... 141.30.210.129 (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I wonder whether just asking questions isn't a more elegant approach than outright claiming that criticising Israel equals anti-Semitism? (Nice use of scare quotes around "legitimate criticism of Israel", btw). ScepticWombat (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not say this. I just remarked how many of the tropes in "legitimate criticism of Israel" are exactly the same tired old antisemitic cliches. Only now the word "Jew" is never even uttered. If you doubt it, just call any Jewish congregation or synagogue in Germany and ask them whether they receive threats or letters accusing them for what Israel allegedly does or does not do. That in addition to the plain old antisemitism regarding how Jews control banks and are thus responsible for the financial crisis and all that... --141.30.210.129 (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that either, did I? I was simply asking questions... ScepticWombat (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Your point being? 141.30.210.129 (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That JAQing off is a pretty crappy tactic and that it's not improved by using the escape hatches it generates.
 * Also, just because some anti-Semites blame Jews elsewhere for Israel's actions it doesn't follow that criticism of Israel is an indication of anti-Semitism, no matter whether you think you can spot a parallel with some old trope of anti-Semitism. It's like denying the influence of the Israel-lobby in US politics or deflecting criticism of that influence by conflating it with old anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.
 * By contrast, if someone claims that the Great Recession should be blamed on Jooish Bankstahs it's a pretty safe bet that they are anti-Semites. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well in my humble opinion the very idea of banks being evil but capitalism being fine and dandy is structurally antisemitic (even if the word "Jew" is never actually uttered). Where you seem to be in at least partial agreement with me. But please elaborate on the thing you call "Israel-Lobby", I would like to hear your thoughts on the matter... 141.30.210.129 (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I assume you've heard of AIPAC, or that the US runs by far the most pro-Israeli policies in the world? Is it solely due to the Israel lobby, no of course not - both historical (e.g. the Arab states tending to favour Moscow for their Cold War support and the loss of Iran as the other main pillar of US Middle East policy) and socio-cultural trends (e.g. the pro-Israel millenarian Christian fundies in the US) favoured a pro-Israeli bias which was strengthened as the US intelligence services began to rely heavily on the Israelis for their Middle Eastern intelligence, not to mention that the Holocaust thankfully made the earlier blatant anti-Semitism an increasingly marginal phenomenon.
 * Furthermore Israel has a far better propaganda machine, fine-tuned to the US market (no wonder with the US the the key Israeli ally), whereas the Palestinians and the Arab states in general have traditionally been hopelessly outclassed, relying on ham-fisted denunciations and primitive slogan-chanting propaganda that wouldn't have been amiss in the old USSR (the unintentionally hilarious "Comical Ali" serves simply as the most extreme real-life caricature and Arafat's moronic embrace of Saddam Hussein in 1990 wasn't far behind - by contrast, the Saudis have mastered the insider lobby approach to an extent that gives the Israel lobby a run for its money, though again there are very real factors in their favour as well).
 * What's interesting to me is that Israel seems to have begun to take a public opinion pounding in the last 5-10 years, especially during the Gaza War, and that this seems to have seeped into even the US, despite such initiatives as Israeli officialdom (I can't recall if it was the state as such or the IDF) moving into the new user-generated media by, for instance, offering scholarships for Israeli students who would accept to be on stand-by to spread pro-Israeli stories via Twitter etc. I'm wondering if the "Holocaust effect" is beginning to wear off, because Israel will be in big trouble on the international scene if it continues the "crush & wither"-policy towards the Palestinians at a time when the mental image of an Israeli isn't that of the plucky descendants of Holocaust survivors or hardy kibbutzim, but instead heavily armed settlers or the (in)famous picture of leisurely "war watchers" that went viral during the Gaza War. Israel needs good PR to continue the occupation and for now it has generally managed it in the US (again, it's the only "market" that really matters for Israeli geopolitics). This was helped by the boost it received from 9/11 (when it could move into the "We're also fighting Islamic terrorists"-club that Russia and even China have signed up for when it suited them), but 9/11 and the War on Terror are also wearing off. If Israel comes to considered as the bully in a broad section of the US populace, then its hold on the occupied territories will be shaken more than any number of suicide bombs or rockets have ever achieved (their effects have, in fact, generally been quite the opposite).
 * A friend of mine offered the provocative suggestion that Israel is slowly turning inot "just another Middle Eastern state", by which he meant that religion and especially fundamentalist branches seem to play increasing roles, that the politics becoming more and more dysfunctional, that its sectarianism more and more explicit and entrenched (e.g. the attacks on Arab-Israeli citizens for being unpatriotic etc.), and that its experiencing increasing socio-economic problems (housing shortages and a markedly increased economic inequality). Now it was offered somewhat tongue-in-cheek (no one is suggesting that Israeli democracy is in anything as dire straits as Egypt's, not to mention the rather dubious democratic credentials of the Gulf monarchies or Iran), but his point was that he saw Israel drifting farther and farther away from the ideals of providing a home for a persecuted people and a Western-style democracy in the region and towards a nasty jingoistic chauvinism. As I heard one Israeli commentator put it, the Israeli victory in 1967 and the subsequent decision to keep occupying the conquered territories were, over the long run, a bad thing for Israel itself as it would, he feared, end up replacing the liberal and democratic Israel he has always loved and admired with an apartheid-like semi-authoritarian system focused on the retention of the West Bank by all means necessary. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

(outdented to save space) well first an observation: The very term Israel-Lobby is a favorite of the anti-Zionist crowd. And the rise of what you call authoritarian politics (i.e. Netanyahu, Sharon and other Likud leaders) also coincides with Mizrahi Jews becoming the culturally dominant group in Israeli society (as opposed to the Ashkenazi Jews that had dominated Israel for its first three decades of existence as well as Zionism before that) - make of that what you want. The fact that the peace process has failed and is not coming back any time soon (at least in the mind of most ordinary Israelis) is probably a contributing factor in the death of all centrist or leftist parties and the pro-negotiations camp in general. Just ten years ago, Sharon founded a party because Likud would not follow him in his (now obviously failed) Gaza-strategy. As is plain to see the withdrawal from Gaza earned Israel nothing and cost it a great deal in terms of security. There will not be a similar attempt for decades to come. On the other hand, most Israelis know that there is a demographic time-bomb. Once there are more Arabs than Jews living between Mediterranean and Jordan, Israel has in effect lost. Because if that ever happens, the question is not "who gets which land" but rather "will there be equal voting rights for all". Nobody who ever answered no to the latter question ever survived politically. So the only "solution" short of ethnic cleansing (which of course would be well within the logic of nation states but not an option for Israel for obvious reasons) would be some semblance of peace that gets rid of a bunch of Palestinians possibly demanding voting rights within Israel. But as I lined out above, there is no credible force in Israeli politics that is even remotely able to get a peace process going again and win the elections (or even two or three elections in a row if the peace process takes longer than expected). This hurts Israel a great deal as it will be stuck with the economic as well as the foreign policy of Likud for as long as the present situation lasts. However, Hamas of course also knows of the demographic situation and won't ever offer a conciliatory stance. All Hamas has to do is bomb as much as they can in advance of any election or whenever there seems to be some semblance of an agreement and the deal will be off, getting Hamas closer to its stated goal of getting rid of those pesky Jews. Ending up with 1967 borders and Hamas on both sides (a very real possibility) of course is no solution either. Israel in essence needs something it can not get: a guarantee for peace in secure defensible borders and that rather yesterday than today. Hamas knows that time is on their side and any dead Israeli is as much a victory for them as any dead Palestinian civilian. So they will continue to fight with the dirtiest tricks in the book, including human shields. The Israeli Arabs on the other hand are caught between all chairs as their traditional political home (the pro-negotiations camp) has ceased to be an effective political force and the new Arab parties are the nastiest kind of anti-Zionist one can imagine. So what can anybody do? Hope Iran does not get the bomb. If Iran gets the bomb, all is for naught regardless. 141.30.210.129 (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

So why again was this page deleted without even any semblance of a vfd process?
Usually pages are only deleted on most wikis (probably it's different over here) after it has been successfully and conclusively determined that they should not be part of said wiki. Or in some rare cases if their content is beyond repair and they should instead be recreated with new content. So, If you care to explain, I am all ears... 141.30.210.129 (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think WS is a very Rw-worthy topic. Your version, with it's accusations of why we haven't made one yet, is not. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 17:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So it was a revenge-deletion?--Arisboch ☞✍✉☜ 17:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Revenge is a strong word for something that's more "I dont trust the writing of somebody who says we don't care about something just because we don't have an article yet."--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 17:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So it is a "yes". How petty. More of a thing, that Andy would do.--Arisboch ☞✍✉☜ 17:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * so restore it, I won't be that hurt.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 17:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have page restoration privileges.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 17:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Now yoy do. IF others want it to be our ws seed, I'm not that bothered. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 17:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wowzers. Thanks!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 17:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, said "accusation" was not even alluded to in mainspace. It was however mentioned on the talk page (if you read it that way) which is still there for all to read... 141.30.210.129 (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not unusual to do a speedy deletion for articles that aren't up to scratch for one reason or another. This one was barely a stub and its contents fairly uninteresting (though I think WS is a pretty fascinating topic as are other "forgotten" conflicts) - sure there's a conflict, but why do we need an article on it and not, say,   or even  What is the particularly "RW-worthy" aspect of the WS-conflict? I'm fairly certain that such a case could be made (hint: so please do make it), but I also seem to recall that I've seen other deletions in which the topic's RW relevance was acknowledged while the article in question was rejected as substandard. So, please chill out and improve. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I know that this is neither here nor there, but I doubt that such a policy is aiding in encouraging the creation of new pages. To put the relevance of this page in the broadest terms: It shows that non-Europeans (and for that matter non-Americans) can do colonizing just as well as Europeans. It further shows that the European colonizers going out does not mean the end of all problems or even necessarily the major conflict. It is also interesting as a case study in comparison to the situation of Israel/Palestine as some things are similar (though by no means equal, there is no widespread movement that calls for an end to the state of Morocco for one) but the level of public consciousness and debate about the issue is remarkably dissimilar. About the latter point at least, there should be agreement. Also there is probably a lot of legit criticism of the POLISARIO (being led by the same guy since the mid seventies comes to mind) that is mentioned even less often... 141.30.210.129 (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Eh, who has been suggesting that non-Europeans can't be colonisers/imperialists or that decolonisation was some kind of political panacea? For instance, RW already has articles on the Rwandan Genocide (post-colonial crimes against humanity) and the Armenian Genocide (non-European imperialist crimes against humanity preceding the post-WWII decolonisation process).
 * As for the parallel with Israel/Palestine, I think it misses the point, because WS was simply split between and annexed by existing states and hasn't been operated in the weird judicial limbo of the occupied territories. In that sense, WS looks far more like the Indo-Pakistani partition of Kashmir in which the proposal of an independent Kashmir was rejected by both states, or, for that matter, the and  in which any local wishes for an independent Schleswig-Holstein were quashed. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The second Schlewsig war is also a fine case of hypocrisy as the very basis for war was an old document saying Schleswig and Holstein should be "op ewig ungedeeld" (for ever un-separated) and the first thing Prussia and Austria did upon winning the war was partitioning it. But if you look at the real taking away of country perpetrated against the Saharaui people (as opposed to the Palestinians who now have more land and freedoms than they ever had in their history), the parallel is not entirely unthinkable. Furthermore the POLISARIO tries to fraim her fight in terms of Intifada and the likes to get the sympathies of Muslim nations (which are mostly on the side of Morocco, for... reasons) 141.30.210.129 (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm very skeptical about your claim that the Palestinians are better off now than ever before, but even if that were the case, that still wouldn't be a reason not to further improve their situation (see: Not as bad as). 142․124․55․236 (talk) 00:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The Palestinians now have more territory than they had in 1948 when Jordan and Egypt controlled Gaza and the "West Bank" 141.30.210.129 (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * More settlements built on private Palestinian property/land is not "more territory". Area A and B were already built-up with Palestinian inhabitants by that time and had no Jewish settlements, so saying that Palestinians have more land for something they already had possessed is nonsensical. Jordan and Egypt did not as a matter of policy import hundreds of thousands of citizens into foreign territory to drive the native inhabitants into smaller cantons/enclaves and break up their territorial contiguity (i.e. see the roads built on Palestinian land). Even then, Jordan granted citizenship to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and granted them the right to vote in national elections, unlike say the current occupation of the territories where Palestinians are treated under a different legal system compared to the Jewish settlers who live in that same territory (and who, on the other hand, do have the right to vote for elections in the Knesset). I think you're conflating military occupations with settlements.ChrisAmiss (talk) 06:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The Palestinians now have more territory than they had in 1948 when Jordan and Egypt controlled Gaza and the "West Bank" Wait, what? Technically that is true, but in reality that is BS and you know it. Compare the way Jordan administered the West Bank to the way Israel does. Both enforced nasty provisions, but to imply as you do, that the Palestinians have access to more land than they prior to the six day war is BS in the highest degree. Alsto003 (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC) Alex
 * And as to Rwanda: the genocide was perpetrated by Africans and its victims were African, but the very difference it was based upon (that between Hutu and Tutsi as ethnic groups) was not considered a thing prior to Europeans meddling. And Rwanda is also the perfect case in point for an intervention being a good thing in some (sadly not all that rare but still uncommon) cases. Had anybody had the guts and stamina to intervene on day one or better yet when the preparations for genocide were in full swing, hundreds of thousands would have survived and Africa's First World War might never have happened... 141.30.210.129 (talk) 23:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "The Palestinians now have more territory than they had in 1948 when Jordan and Egypt controlled Gaza and the "West Bank.""
 * Okay, that's just BS based on a very particular definition of "Palestinians" and "territory". I'm suspecting that .129 is actually referring to the tiny Bantustans run by Hamas (Gaza) and Fatah (West Bank), but equating them with Palestinians in general and claiming that these quasi-autonomous enclaves constitute a better deal for Palestinians overall than the situation in 1948, simply because the Palestinians were divided between Egypt and Jordan, is just bunk - especially considering the huge numbers of Palestinians living in refugee camps (indeed some of them go back to 1948) who have lost their private land in what is today Israel (especially the 1948-refugees who probably won't get any of their land or property back and will be lucky even to get some form of compensation). Sure, in the current situation, (some) Palestinians have more of the paraphernalia typically associated with a state, but apart from the evacuation of the Gaza settlements, ordinary Palestinians have constantly been losing land ever since 1948 and even the West Bank Bantustan continues to lose territory to expanding Israeli settlements.
 * Also, it's not entirely accurate that Schleswig and Holstein were split up after 1864, they were simply but were still viewed as a single entity. The final status of Schleswig-Holstein (and the tiny Lauenburg, btw) was unresolved as the Austrians preferred them to become either an independent state within the German Confederation or annexed by Prussia with Austria being compensated with Silesian territories, whereas Bismarck saw the ambiguous status as an asset for dealing with Austria. Of course this situation only lasted two years anyway.
 * As for the reference to Rwanda and interventions, who's arguing that non-intervention is always the proper response, or even that it was or could be justified (through either ignorance or misjudgement) in the specific case of Rwanda? Once again it seems that .129 is setting up his/her own strawman in order to give it a good pounding. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Question. Would you be happy with a situation where the Palestinians get all of the West Bank that hasn't been annexed (everything but Jerusalem), the Israelis withdrawing from the settlements, and the WB becoming its own state, provided that they sign a peace treaty recognizing Israel's claims on everything else, ending the attacks, etc etc?  CorruptUser (talk) 07:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Was that question for me? ScepticWombat (talk) 07:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You or ChrisAmiss or the BoN. CorruptUser (talk) 07:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but Palestinians should have a capital in East Jerusalem and Israel should have a capital in West Jerusalem in accordance with international law. Israel has a right to exist because they are a member state of the UN and have the same rights as any other state. Israelis have a right to live in peace and security much like Palestinians do under occupation. That Israel has a right to exist does not give it the right to take land it conquered for land annexation purposes because it would establish a precedent in the 21st century (NOTE: not the 19th century in which land conquests are now irreversible) where countries like Russia or Morocco can do as they please and take land for themselves through might. International peacekeeping forces should be deployed at the 1967 borders (the legal border) to prevent IDF/Palestinian militant infiltration.ChrisAmiss (talk) 07:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay then, here's my two cents' worth:
 * First, it doesn't really matter if I'm happy with such a solution or not, but whether Palestinians and Israelis can accept it.
 * Secondly, I don't see why Eastern Jerusalem is excluded, since Israel itself has denied that it has annexed it de jure, so it's in the same judicial limbo as the rest of the occupied territories. Not to mention that, in terms of getting the Palestinians (read: Fatah) to accept a deal, Israeli concessions on Eastern Jerusalem would be worth a lot.
 * Thirdly, the demands for the West Bank Palestinians to "sign a peace treaty recognizing Israel's claims on everything else, ending the attacks" is already reflected in the current state of affairs: Fatah does recognise Israel's claims on "Green Line Israel", it has clearly stated that it fights to get a Palestinian state in the 1967 territories, and as already mentioned the Israeli claims on Eastern Jerusalem are no sounder from a legal standpoint than their claims on the rest of the occupied territories.
 * Fourthly, if we're talking what would be "legally fair" then, yes, a complete Israeli withdrawal (settlements and all) to the 1967 Green Line (yes, that includes withdrawal from Eastern Jerusalem) would be the simple and only course of action as confirmed by oodles of UN declarations and resolutions (two nations, side-by-side, living in peace etc. etc. etc.). That would leave a Palestinian state without any legal basis for attacking Israel and if it did so anyway, it would probably face strong repercussions from not only Israel, but the rest of the world as well.
 * Fifthly, if we're talking about what's practically feasible, then an Israel of the Green Line borders is probably completely unrealistic. The Palestinians may have the stronger de jure position, but that's more than offset by the old adage that "possession is nine-tenths of the law"... It's not particularly fair, it doesn't set a very good precedent (hint: Crimea), but it's probably more likely that the Palestinians will be forced to accept some reduced share of what's legally theirs. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * While this mostly fair, I must warn you that the idea that Israel would ever give up East Jerusalem, specifically the Old City and Jewish Quarter is nuts. They do not trust the Palestinians to preserve the Holy sites and they do not trust that they would ever have access to them. They do not care about the fact that it is technically and illegally occupied much in the same way many Palestinians don't care about the fact that Israel legally exists. The US realizes this and that is why the position of the US is that the borders should be based on the Green Line rather than on the Green Line. So just to reiterate, there is zero chance that any Israeli Prime Minister could give the Palestinians complete control over the entire Old City and by extension the entirety of East Jerusalem, zero. It a very emotional point for Jews not just in Israel but in the diaspora too. If we trusted that the Palestinians would preserve those sites and gives us access to them than perhaps some minds could be changed, but the odds of them doing that are nil and no-one would believe them now if they said they would. Alsto003 (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC) Alex
 * Even though the PA legally did not have to concede any of the Israeli settlements, they nevertheless tried to make reasonable compromises by allowing 60% of the settlers to stay so that the West Bank would not be totally trisected and divided into three cantons (in-case Israel decided to annex the main settlement blocs and use the West Bank Barrier as its official border). From a practical standpoint as noted by ScepticWombat, the solution the PA offered was not unreasonable. Here's the map they proposed: https://ipfreelydotme.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/palmap.jpg ChrisAmiss (talk) 07:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it matters little. The high water mark of the peace process was Camp David, where Arafat was offered 96% of his demands and a chance at a decent compromise on East Jerusalem (my answer is simply and squarely: No city should be divided and Jerusalem off limits to Jews would be unacceptable) and the so-called refugees (I know I might sound like a broken record by now, but.... You can't inherit refugee status). Arafat refused to even see this as a basis for further negotiations. Merely months later Sharon dared visit the temple mount and the Second Intifada destroyed any hope at peace even with the Israeli left. Even than Sharon (a right wing extremist to the minds of many) unilaterally withdraw from Gaza, making it in effect judenfrei by force. Only to see rockets flying onto Sderot the minute Israel turned its back. There is a reason why the peace-seeking left gets clobbered in all recent Israeli elections. I don't like it a single bit, but as long as there is no guarantee that you get the only thing the Palestinians can give in return for Israeli bargaining chips that actually means something - an end to terrorism and violence is not attained, further steps in the peace process won't be popular. If there is no way of keeping terrorists from blowing up buses and shooting rockets through peaceful negotiations, it is clear that those parties that advocate walls and rocket shields as well as military interventions to cut off the head of the snake will triumph. Furthermore, I doubt there is any legitimate representative of the Palestinian side. Their last elections were in 2006. And as to East-Jerusalem not being annexed? Nope. There was a law in 1980. Oh and as an aside: In 1966 Jews could not enter the Jewish holy sites in Jerusalem. Today Muslims (including Palestinians) can enter the Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem. 141.30.210.129 (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * With all do respect to .129, while I can sympathize with some of your points I mostly agree with scepticwombat. Israel must always conduct peace negotiations (even if they go nowhere). When Israel negotiates it must make the Palestinians an offer, which from the point of the view of the west, they cannot refuse. This is because the Palestinians are not the ones who need peace in the long term, the Israelis are. Therefore when they negotiate the Israelis must be the ones making generous offers that if rejected by the Palestinians would indisputably confirm the view that the latter group would never accept any peace with Israel (and the most important aspect of any kind of offer like that would be that the Palestinians get the same amount of territory they used to have before 1968, or (if you prefer) was annexed by Jordan and Egypt in 1948 and ruled by them until 1968). I would think that by now, in this day and age with all the activism going on, that this would be self-evident but apparently it isn't. Alsto003 (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC) Alex
 * Again I'll have to call BS on one of .129's claims: What is the source for the claim that "Arafat was offered 96% of his demands" and what were those demands? What Fatah was offered was just under three quarters of the West Bank and 100% of Gaza (already a dubious prize) with a chance to, at Israeli leisure regain up to 86% of the WB. Should Ukraine accept 86% of Crimea and it eastern provinces or risk being described as a "peace spoiler" for not accepting a generous Russian offer?
 * Also, the Gaza withdrawal was simply a recognition that the Gaza settlements were even less tenable than the WB ones. Pulling a Godwin (and it's Judenfrei with a capital J, btw) isn't going to win much applause when the Jews in question were Israeli "settlers", squatting on land that didn't belong to them in complete violation of international law.
 * As for Eastern Jerusalem, which leaves the area in essentially the same legal limbo (de jure occupied, de facto annexed if one looks at what the Israeli state does) as the rest of the occupied territories.
 * Oh, and what's that aside supposed to demonstrate? It's hardly the Palestinians' or Fatah's fault that Jordan behaved dickishly in the 1960s... ScepticWombat (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Judenfrei" is spelled with an lowercase "j", since it is a adjective, not a noun.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 15:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, my bad. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Random edit break
Well my aside might just indicate what might happen if Israel gives up Jerusalem once more. A "peace" that leaves Jews begging for access to Jewish holy sites is not an acceptable peace to 95% of Israeli Jews (and a good deal of Israeli Arabs) and is thus unlikely to ever happen. And as for Ukraine being happy with part of Crimea... Well it's not like they are getting any of it right now. Russia giving up part of Crimea as well as support for the Donbass separatists may actually be a very good deal for Ukraine, all things considered. 141.30.210.129 (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The point about Camp David is propaganda. One of the Israeli negotiators, Shlomo Ben-Ami, said if he were a Palestinian, he would've rejected Camp David as well. I've already addressed how Israel never truly left Gaza in 2005 and actually started the provocations by assassinating three IJ militants on September 23. And the whole disengagement from Gaza was never about peace as much as putting the peace process on the back burner, as Dov Weivglass admitted in a famous interview. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Well my aside might just indicate what might happen if Israel gives up Jerusalem once more." Cue slippery slope...
 * Similar with the subsequent appeal to hypothetical and rather unrealistic consequences, given that such places of worship were to be freely accessible and that a Palestinian state would be extremely unlikely to be in a strong enough position to do what the Jordanians did prior to 1967 (when, btw, a state of war formally existed between Jordan an Israel - hardly a state of affairs conducive to goodwill on either side).
 * So Ukraine should just accept that might makes right too? That's an... interesting approach to international law... ScepticWombat (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you call a law that is hardly ever enforced? Whatever term you come up with, it is the appropriate term for international law. And as for Crimea: The Russian claim on it is not entirely Bullshit (though it is 73.8% BS) and they could have gotten it through a credible referendum, as this area actually has a Russian language plurality (but than again the Crimean Tartars are hardly friends of Russian foreign policy). But Putin had to demonstrate his tough guy credentials, so-.... 141.30.210.129 (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * All law is "Might makes Right". People give their might over to governments, and decide what is right in a number of different ways, but ultimately a law that is not backed up by anything other than words is effectively no law at all.  Worse, actually; leaving laws unenforced results in people breaking not just those laws, but other laws as well, resulting in law enforcement spreading thin and even more laws unenforced...
 * Really, what I'd like to see is fairly simple. Israel has two options.  The land is independent, or the land that is annexed gets the people too.  That is, if the Israelis want Hebron, all the Palestinians in Hebron get Israeli citizenship. CorruptUser (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Do all people currently residing in Berlin have German citizenship? Would you consider the ethnically Turkish enclaves of Kreuzberg to be "occupied"? 141.30.210.129 (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wut? The issue is, the Palestinians that were living in the Old City had the border cross them, not the other way around.  Israel wants the land?  Gotta take the people with it. CorruptUser (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Israel annexes Zone C and recognizes a Palestinian state in Zone A and B. Currently roughly 600 000 Jews and 300 000 non-Jews live in Zone C if my source is correct. The non-Jews in Zone C are free to become Israeli or Palestinian citizens and leave Israel any time they please. For some reason I don't think most of the contributors to this talk page would think that to be a fair deal. 141.30.210.129 (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And what of the people in Zone A and B that used to live in Zone C prior to '67? CorruptUser (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of them are dead by now. Being born before 1967 and all... 141.30.210.129 (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 50 years? The fact that a bunch of people didn't make 50+ in the modern world should be a problem too you, not a solution to an issue.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So let's just assume, that about half of them were 30 years or older. What is the life expectancy in this area, again? 141.30.210.129 (talk) 00:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Israeli life expectancy is currently sitting at 81 years. Jordan is at 73. Lebanon is at 79. Syria, before fucking everything went topsy over there was at 74. Iraq is at 69 and before the invasion was at 71. Iran is at 73, Saudi Arabia is at 75. Palestinian life expectancy is sitting at 73. Unless my use of google and the answer it gave me is wrong, life expectancy is not all that different there from anywhere else. Even assuming half of them were 30+ and are now dead, and including other issues that would drop the population, that still leaves a sizable population who as young people were forced from their homes and would now have to either go live in the country that occupied said homes and then took them from the country the world agreed owned said homes, or permanently have their family live elsewhere. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I guess the live expectancy for someone born in 1937 or earlier (i.e. someone 30years of age or older in 1967) would be much lower than that. And even if more than half of those actually physically themselves having lived there before are still alive, they are not all that many people. This area has seen some explosive population growth in recent years. And as I see in the whole Gaza discussion, there is this strange implication that a high population density is somehow "bad".... Which is funny considering countries with high population density are almost all filthy rich, especially compared to less dense countries. And most people seem to want to live in areas with high population density (i.e. cities) and not areas with low population density. This is one of the reasons why the high Alps have lost population since industrialization. Once there is a city in town you don't want to live "ohm auf d' Alm mit am Öhi und da' Heidi". Same probably goes for most of the Palestinians. Zone C is mostly rural and nature reserves. Now tell me again how everybody wants to live in the Adirondacks? 141.30.210.129 (talk) 13:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

=Unrelated discussion that's actually about Western Sahara=

Solution
So how is one to find a solution that the Sahrawis can live with? And no I won't let any appeal to "international law" count. We know that most countries there are or ever where don't give a rat's ass about any (real or imagined) "international law"... 141.30.210.129 (talk) 13:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Honestly? They may just have to bite a bullet on this and not have full independence. I mean, the country, according to WP, has about as many people living in it as my hometown does. Full independence just doesn't seem very viable anymore and some form of power-sharing deal with Morocco seems the best outcome they can hope for. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 13:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Iceland has some 300 000 people and is mostly barren glaciers or barren volcanic wasteland. It became independent from Denmark in 1944 (de jure; de facto it was a British/American protectorate for most of the war). Your point being? 141.30.210.129 (talk) 13:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "But people did it in the past" really isn't the international standard we want to be pushing for here. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Your standard seems to be "Fuck what people want; I define an arbitrary minimum number of people for a country to be a thing". Tell me how is this arbitrary minimum number for countries any better than my precedent against it? You know that precedent is eleven tenths of the law (sic!) 141.30.210.129 (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I never said that 500k people isn't enough to be a country, i questioned how well the country can recover in the here and now from the last half century with such a low population in the state said population has been in.(And for the record, I would much prefer a independent WS, so fuck off with that noise) And if we -really- want to be using your "but another country did it before" standard, WS will never become an independent country because past international action includes things like forcibly integrating and ignoring the will of a people living somewhere. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The only problem the Sahrawis have is that Morocco isn't pissing off the right people. Serbia mightily pissed off the West and boom, Kosovo becomes a thing. Ucraine pissed off Russia and boom Crimea becomes Russian and Donbass "Republics" become a thing... Now who would Morocco have to piss of for Western Sahara to become a thing? 141.30.210.129 (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Millions of innocent Saharawis are murdered by the Moroccon occupation
I have extensively documented sources that I can give you tonite about the brutal opression of Sahrawis where the Moroccon occupiers (the most moral army™) bomb innocent children to maintain their illegal occupation and blokade! Why are you not doing anything? Why does Obama and the French continue to support the illegal occupation and the Apartheid regime in Casablanca? The UN has passed huindreds of resolution for the decolonisation of Sahara! This is a factr that Morocco apoligists do not like!!!!! And they are among the most disgusting people in the world with their doxxing ansd harassing and lying! I would tell you more but I am afraid iof the Morroccon sexret service! They knew about 9/11! Freedom for West Sahara! EWnd the Apartheid occupation! rite now! 79.141.160.23 (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Extensive documentation that the Moroccans have murdered more people than have ever existed over there? CoryUsar (talk) 15:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

If independence was actually achieved
I will be blunt: The Sahawari Arab Democratic Republic does not seem like it would last very long. The only reason the Sahawari Arab Democratic Republic has any semblance function is because of Algerian support. If, for whatever reason, Morocco leaves Western Sahara I doubt that Algeria would care about assisting Polisario. Algeria pretty much cares about sticking it to Morocco.

Polisario (in my opinion) would unlikely be able to form a government as they have no independent functioning economy, no actual health services, nothing that could count as real infrastructure and their current government is completely reliant on Algeria. --Trans Fem Agenda 01:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)