17 hours ago, Morch said:

 

South Africa's previous system was Israel's "twin" only if one is ignorant of facts, or bent on misrepresenting them to suit his politics.

 

Strong announcements about the two-state solution no longer being viable do not usually rely on facts either, and the same goes for unreserved supportive views regarding one-state solution. The same applies - either one is misinformed, or intentionally misrepresents things so that they fit a narrative.

Reputable statesmen like Jimmy Carter came to that conclusion a couple decades ago. They are still right. 

11 hours ago, pegman said:

Reputable statesmen like Jimmy Carter came to that conclusion a couple decades ago. They are still right. 

 

Not really. Carter did use the term (even in the title of his book), but he also made clarifying comments - namely, that he doesn't see this as applying to Israel as a country, but with regard to it's occupation and rule over Palestinian territory. You seem to go an extra step there. As for the "twin" bit - I don't think that's based on Carter's views, but your own. Some years back, South Africa's de Klerk was asked to comment on such comparisons - he rejected these, with the caveat that it might become a fitting description if Israel ever annex the Palestinian territories without affording Palestinians the expected rights. That's more in line with Carter's take, I think. And something I can subscribe to as well.

 

Now, if you don't mind, can we drop the Apartheid nonsense and get back to the nonsense at hand - the so-called Deal of the Century.

 

Even if it wasn't a DOA effort due to political issues, and cart-before-the-horse thing, there are some odd (to put it mildly) items on the list. While I know (and mostly agree) with posters low esteem of Kushner, it still seems unlikely to chalk them all to cluelessnes.

 

I'll touch on some of the glaring ones:

 

• The Gaza Strip is ruled by Hamas, and this isn't about to change in the near future. Funding projects in the Gaza Strip is already complicated by the political situation, and that holds true even for much smaller scale efforts. Also, the likelihood of Hamas, an Islamic movement, supporting turning Gaza's beaches into a riviera, complete with all the trappings of Western decadence and immorality, are slim.
• Many elements of the plan rely on more-or-less open borders. That's very far removed from current reality (even disregarding the Israeli-Egyptian blockade on the Gaza Strip). Expecting the legal and regulatory changes required to be introduced any time soon is a laugh.
• There's mention of Industrial zones to be set up. Could have missed it, but details as to where and on who's territory these will be set up are lacking. Same lack of clarity with regard to who gets to participate (employers and employees alike).
• Tourism seems to be hyped. With regard to the West Bank (related comment on Gaza Strip above), though, the main attractions would be relevant mostly to religious tourism - Jewish and Christian. I'm not sure that's going to be well received by locals. Jerusalem (a key factor in this) is apparently off the table for now, being too tricky and explosive an issue to deal with.
• Connecting the Gaza Strip and the West Bank is easier said than done. I doubt there's a satisfactory way of dealing with security issues or territorial ones.
• So long as the Palestinians are politically divided, and act out their differences in non-democratic ways, it's going to be nigh impossible advancing many of the issues raised. And so long as Israel's political trends continue to be unfavorable to the required concessions, the same will apply. Talking about the economy without addressing the politics doesn't make the latter go away.