Israelis protest Netanyahu's annexation plan

[webfact]

Israelis protest Netanyahu's annexation plan

 

Demonstrators protest under coronavirus restrictions against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's plan to annex parts of the Israeli-occupied West Bank, in Tel Aviv, Israel June 6, 2020. REUTERS/Amir Cohen

 

TEL AVIV, Israel (Reuters) - Several thousand Israelis demonstrated on Saturday against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's plan to extend sovereignty over parts of the occupied West Bank, de-facto annexation of land that the Palestinians seek for a state.

 

Protesting in face masks and keeping their distance from each other under coronavirus restrictions, they gathered under the banner "No to annexation, no to occupation, yes to peace and democracy". Some waved Palestinian flags.

 

The protest was organised by left-wing groups and did not appear to be the start of a popular mass movement. Around half of Israelis support annexation, according to a recent opinion poll.

 

Scuffles broke out and several arrests were made as thousands of Israelis, chanting 'Palestinian Lives Matter', held a demonstration in Tel Aviv on Saturday. David Doyle reports.

 

The organisers screened a video address by U.S. Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders.

 

"It has never been more important to stand up for justice, and to fight for the future we all deserve," Sanders said. "It’s up to all of us to stand up to authoritarian leaders and to build a peaceful future for every Palestinian and every Israeli."

 

The Palestinians want an independent state in the West Bank, east Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, territories Israel captured in a 1967 Middle East war.

 

Netanyahu has set July 1 as the date to begin advancing his plan to annex Israel's settlements and the Jordan Valley in the West Bank, hoping for a green light from Washington.

 

U.S. President Donald Trump has unveiled a peace plan that includes Israel keeping its settlements and the Palestinians establishing a state under stringent conditions.

 

Palestinians have rejected the proposal and voiced outrage against Israel's proposed annexation.

 

Warning of possible violence and diplomatic repercussions, some European and Arab states, together with the United Nations, have urged Israel not to annex its settlements, regarded by many countries as illegal.

 

(Reporting by Amir Cohen; Writing by Maayan Lubell; Editing by Hugh Lawson)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-06-08

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[dexterm]

Netanyahu and Trump's annexation plan is the final nail in the coffin of a two state solution. The expanded Israel will completely surround a patchwork quilt of Palestinian bantustans, and yet the majority population from the Jordan to the Mediterranean will be Palestinian but without a say in how 100% of their lives are controlled by the minority Jewish population. Classic apartheid.

The only eventual solution will be one man one vote in one state, and a welcome end to the racist supremacist ideology of Zionism.

 

So I am secretly applauding Trump's blundering cheer leading of Israel's sleepwalk into a single truly democratic state, sadly probably after a painful period of overt apartheid. Even if Joe Biden wins, he may not want to roll back the changes.

 

By using sanctions the USA, UK and the EU (Israel's largest trading partner) could have easily ended the impunity with which Israel has violated international law in an illegal occupation of 53 years, just as they immediately imposed when Russia occupied Crimea. Instead for decades they have mouthed platitudes about "strong disapproval" of settlement expansion while turning a blind eye to Israel's war crimes. I often wonder whether they are quietly hoping with their inaction, as I am, that Israel will continue to dig a one state solution hole for itself.

 

To me it is quite simple and I am just amazed that no-one has done it yet. If you genuinely want a two state solution, just call Israel's bluff. Say: sure, we welcome the Israeli annexation of the whole of Palestine, provided that you also give equal rights to the majority indigenous Palestinian population you are annexing. Just watch Israel rush to the negotiating table!

Edited June 8, 2020 by dexterm

[Pedrogaz]

This is my great objection to anti-semitism. Not all jews are zionists bent on stealing land off Palestinians. 

Thank god for people like these. Sadly there are not enough in Israel to command a majority in the Knesset.

 

I once read and cannot remember where....I think it was an Ancient Greek book like Herodotus. He observed that when you kill someone, the desire for vengeance does out within a generation....whereas if you steal land, the desire to reacquire the land never, ever goes away, because the land is always there, and every time you pass it, you think to yourself "that used to be my family's (my) land, I hate those people who stole it". This is the root of the problem in Palestine....the UN gave away Palestinian land to Israelis at the behest of US/UK. Some Palestinians can never come to accept this. The only possible solution now is for Israel to return to the 1967 borders and return the land.

The decent world ie the world outside of US, Australia and UK needs to sanction Israel....and it would be a good idea if dual nationals be prevented from being congressmen or senators in the US.

[Morch]

For a full-fledged annexation move alleged to materialize in three weeks, there doesn't seem to be much by way of the needed legislative process, nor specific preparations by related civilian or military authorities. In fact, the annexation issue doesn't even feature much on Israeli media, and verified details pertaining to what falls under the heading are rather sparse.

 

On the other hand, there are rumors, hot air, and statements which fall short of having much substance - some of this being contradictory, some alleging this or that while failing to address relevant obstacles and issues.

 

The non-ideological and volatile nature of Trump's decision making, plus his main focus being Trump, suggests the administration's stand regarding any specific foreign policy issue remaining constant is not a given. In a somewhat similar fashion, Netanyahu main concern is with his own personal political survival, with ideology taking a supporting role, or even a backseat.

 

This rather suspicious lack of related activity associated with such a move, not much by way of public debate regarding a potentially monumental decision, and those in the know limited to Netanyahu's inner circle, one possible interpretation is that the main drive is political.

 

There are many commentators assessing Netanyahu would instigate a political crisis aimed at breaking up his current, uneasy coalition, seeking re-election on better terms. Disagreements over annexation could be marketed as justifying such a move. Taking up a hard line position possibly serving him well against both a fragmented, confused opposition, and stealing extra votes from troublesome right-wing "allies". Declaring elections would automatically make the transition government unable to annex anything, and by the time a new government is set, it might be too close to the US elections (so better wait and see), or this or that. In other words, no big decisions to be made, no big moves actually taken. On the trial front, no legalization on PM term limits, PM legal status while parliament is dissolved, and getting reelected with a wider margin surely playing in his favor.

 

That's not to say that there won't be an annexation - but if Netanyahu remains loyal to his ways, it would fall short of his bold statements. The trouble is that even a "PR" annexation could eventually snowball into a nightmare. Well, that too would be in line with many of Israel's right wing "policies" regarding the conflict, no surprises.

[Morch]

 

A few comments on the usual commentary from the usual posters.

 

There is no unified Zionist take when it comes to this topic, or to wider issues related to the conflict. For example, there's currently a resistance to Netanyahu's annexation statements and Trump's plan from right wing religious messianic factions (mainly on the grounds that it acknowledges Palestinian statehood, and that the "bantustans" would be their settlements), centrist and left-wing factions (main focus being that annexation would ultimately spell the end of Israel, damage international relations, and the whole thing being plain wrong). Failing to acknowledge differing ideological views is an unsurprising choice.

 

It's all very well to fantasize about a far-fetched utopia. Less so when offered by keyboard activists who won't face even the minimized-to-half-a-line-hardship prescribed. It might also be advisable to familiar oneself with the actual political positions of factions involved, including those of the people "supported". Doubt most Palestinians are into the offered course of action, or committed to the rosy utopian vision.

 

The USA, the EU, the UK, and indeed, most of the World, does not currently subscribe to the extreme views and measures wished for. I rather doubt it implies either support for Israel's policies, or anything resembling the rhetoric on offer in the posts above. Mostly, countries and governments simply tend to engage on a less confrontational and vehement level than imagined. As for labeling the world outside of the US, Australia and the UK as "decent", well now.... 

 

And finally, here's a link to another article, which among other things also details different poll results:

 

Netanyahu vows all settlements will be annexed July 1, but other lands may wait

https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-vows-all-settlements-will-be-annexed-july-1-but-other-lands-may-wait/

 

[notmyself]

The arrogance of Bibi is disgusting. 

[sirineou]

9 minutes ago, notmyself said:

The arrogance of Bibi is disgusting. 

Good thing nobody ever voted for him. 

[geriatrickid]

12 hours ago, Pedrogaz said:

This is my great objection to anti-semitism. Not all jews are zionists bent on stealing land off Palestinians. 

Thank god for people like these. Sadly there are not enough in Israel to command a majority in the Knesset.

 

I once read and cannot remember where....I think it was an Ancient Greek book like Herodotus. He observed that when you kill someone, the desire for vengeance does out within a generation....whereas if you steal land, the desire to reacquire the land never, ever goes away, because the land is always there, and every time you pass it, you think to yourself "that used to be my family's (my) land, I hate those people who stole it". This is the root of the problem in Palestine....the UN gave away Palestinian land to Israelis at the behest of US/UK. Some Palestinians can never come to accept this. The only possible solution now is for Israel to return to the 1967 borders and return the land.

The decent world ie the world outside of US, Australia and UK needs to sanction Israel....and it would be a good idea if dual nationals be prevented from being congressmen or senators in the US.

Ok, and what of the million or so arabs of jewish faith forced to flee from Arab countries? Where is their  settlement/compensation? Will they be given their lands and property back? Will they be allowed to live in peace?  The Arab countries won't take them back. Where do you want them to go, now that most have settled in israel.

 

Your argument is  very nice but it ignores these people. Do they not have rights too? The Egyptians forced their jews out with  less than 72 hours notice. The streets of  Iraq and Tunisia ran red with the slaughter of their jews who had lived there for centuries.

 

What is your solution for these people?

 

[Rimmer]

An off topic post has been removed

[dexterm]

14 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

Ok, and what of the million or so arabs of jewish faith forced to flee from Arab countries? Where is their  settlement/compensation? Will they be given their lands and property back? Will they be allowed to live in peace?  The Arab countries won't take them back. Where do you want them to go, now that most have settled in israel.

 

Your argument is  very nice but it ignores these people. Do they not have rights too? The Egyptians forced their jews out with  less than 72 hours notice. The streets of  Iraq and Tunisia ran red with the slaughter of their jews who had lived there for centuries.

 

What is your solution for these people?

 

Although a deflection, I will bite. I am 100% in favor of compensation for Jews who fled or who were forced to flee from other countries, as I am for Palestinians ethnically cleansed by Zionists. But why blame the Palestinians for what other countries have done to Jews. Why should Jewish persecution and suffering be transferred to Palestinians as scapegoats?

 

My solution is simple: Israeli Jews stay exactly where they are and share the country with Palestinians in some sort of bicameral 50:50 parliament or a confederation like the EU, UK or USA. Israel could still be a safe haven for global Jewry and also for Palestinians.

 

Netanyahu's annexation move is simply hastening this inevitable process.

[Morch]

 

1 hour ago, dexterm said:

Although a deflection, I will bite. I am 100% in favor of compensation for Jews who fled or who were forced to flee from other countries, as I am for Palestinians ethnically cleansed by Zionists. But why blame the Palestinians for what other countries have done to Jews. Why should Jewish persecution and suffering be transferred to Palestinians as scapegoats?

 

My solution is simple: Israeli Jews stay exactly where they are and share the country with Palestinians in some sort of bicameral 50:50 parliament or a confederation like the EU, UK or USA. Israel could still be a safe haven for global Jewry and also for Palestinians.

 

Netanyahu's annexation move is simply hastening this inevitable process.

 

Jews - "Fled" or "were forced to flee". Jewish communities pretty much erased.

Palestinians - "ethnically cleansed". Palestinians constitute about 20% of Israel's population.

 

Them differences.

 

As for "blaming the Palestinians", I don't think they are directly blamed for this. But apparently not much issues with Jews being expelled from said countries as revenge for something they weren't part of. Guess that tired bit about two wrongs not making a right is once more selectively applied.

 

Your "solution" ignores the reality of the Middle East, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or the wishes of either people.

[dexterm]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

 

Jews - "Fled" or "were forced to flee". Jewish communities pretty much erased.

Palestinians - "ethnically cleansed". Palestinians constitute about 20% of Israel's population.

 

Them differences.

 

As for "blaming the Palestinians", I don't think they are directly blamed for this. But apparently not much issues with Jews being expelled from said countries as revenge for something they weren't part of. Guess that tired bit about two wrongs not making a right is once more selectively applied.

 

Your "solution" ignores the reality of the Middle East, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or the wishes of either people.

Disingenuous deflection from the OP. I'm not going to play your game of who left voluntarily, who fled, who was forced to flee...who stayed. Similar experiences for both communities. Irrelevant to the OP.

 

The reality of the Israeli Palestinian conflict is that Israel is about to annex areas of the West Bank in particular the Jordan Valley completely surrounding Palestinian bantustans, where Israel will still have 100% control of Palestinian lives but without their having a say in how they are governed. Netanyahu has also said that even Palestinians who live inside the newly annexed areas will not be offered Israeli citizenship. Classic apartheid.

 

In the link you provide above the only objection Israeli settlers seem to have to the Trump Annexation plan is that it gives in their opinion too many crumbs to Palestinians. And then only if the Palestinians are good subservient boys and girls for 4 years. It ain't going to happen is it? It was never intended to. Israel will annex the lot, which will eventuate in a single state...good for reasons I outlined in my first post..

 

I don't know why you regard equal rights as Utopian or unrealistic. That's how most of the free western world lives...when will Israel join the 21st century?

 

Segregated Jewish and Palestinian roads, schools, hospitals, swimming pools, checkpoints, segregated communities, separate laws, while the IDF can continue to invade any home they like in the middle of the night snatching children from their beds without charge, young Israelis brutalized for 3 of the best years of their lives in military service, racism endemic... doesn't sound like much of an ideal society to me. And all this formalized in annexation. Lets face it: as many previous US administrations have said: this situation is untenable. The racist supremacist Zionist project is doomed. Just a matter of time. And just like South African white supremacists they cant see the writing on the wall.

 

You have repeatedly called the occupation illegal. Will you now condemn annexation?

Edited June 9, 2020 by dexterm

[DaddyWarbucks]

Certainly a one-state solution with equal rights for all ignores the reality of the Middle East and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. No argument there.

Understandably the Israelis want something more than a dinky little country not much bigger than New Jersey.

The Palestinians want a sovereign state of their own but their incompetence and lack of good leadership have so far prevented any progress in that direction.

 

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

Not "my game", but rather your words. I was merely quoting what you posted and pointing out the discrepancy between description and fact, as applied to both people. Do go on about "disingenuous"...

 

The reality of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that neither group really wishes for the sort of "solution" you preach. There's too much bad blood, hatred and distrust to allow any stable, workable "one state". That's not to say that somewhere down the road, a long time from now, such "one state" will not be a reality. But for the foreseeable future, any such "solutions" spell nothing but further trouble. Pushing for this to happen now is misguided - whether through Netanyahu's actions or in accordance with your own rhetoric.

 

So far, nothing was annexed. There aren't even clear details as to what the supposed annexation actually spells. Netanyahu says a lot of things, that doesn't necessarily mean they all materialize, or that they are all true. So until it comes about, calling your description of the annexation a "reality" is not accurate,

 

I do not regard equal rights as utopian or unrealistic. I acknowledge that applying such while disregarding relevant realities, facts and context is, again, misguided. Most of the "free western world" does not have to address the sort of issues pertaining to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Importing solutions which work in one reality to a different one is not necessarily a recipe for success.

 

Never said anything about Israeli being an ideal society or even close to it. Barking up the wrong tree. There's also nothing in my posts which suggests the ongoing occupation, and certainly not annexation, are either right or in Israel's best interests. You've read enough of these to know where I stand, spare me the "condemn" nonsense.

 

IMO, the best way out of this is still a solution based on a two-state concept. No illusions as to it being an easy one. It's certainly less problematic, if not as sexy, as the imaginary utopia on offer.

[Morch]

19 minutes ago, DaddyWarbucks said:

Certainly a one-state solution with equal rights for all ignores the reality of the Middle East and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. No argument there.

Understandably the Israelis want something more than a dinky little country not much bigger than New Jersey.

The Palestinians want a sovereign state of their own but their incompetence and lack of good leadership have so far prevented any progress in that direction.

 

 

I think that's one of the few posts you've made on these topics which I can (mostly) agree with.

 

The "want something more than a dinky little country..." though, not so much. If this was about territory per se, then Israel would have opted keeping the Sinai Peninsula (or at least bargained to keep some existing assets there). Sort of the same applies to the Gaza Strip. What makes the West Bank different is, as ever, the religious element. In terms of demographics and real estate, it's still a flop.

[geriatrickid]

4 hours ago, dexterm said:

Although a deflection, I will bite. I am 100% in favor of compensation for Jews who fled or who were forced to flee from other countries, as I am for Palestinians ethnically cleansed by Zionists. But why blame the Palestinians for what other countries have done to Jews. Why should Jewish persecution and suffering be transferred to Palestinians as scapegoats?

 

My solution is simple: Israeli Jews stay exactly where they are and share the country with Palestinians in some sort of bicameral 50:50 parliament or a confederation like the EU, UK or USA. Israel could still be a safe haven for global Jewry and also for Palestinians.

 

Netanyahu's annexation move is simply hastening this inevitable process.

It is not a deflection because the issue of the loss of  their assets and land is an integral part of the overall  problem. Those arabs of the jewish faith had nowhere to go, except Israel, few countries in the world were willing to accept them.  That is what  ethnic cleansing is. You say that the Israelis should share their land with palestinians.   Hardly a fair trade since the jewish arabs lost significant assets. WHo will compensate them? The arabs? Not likely. What about their land? 

Your argument ignores the multiple wars that the arabs waged on Israel. Loss of land and territory is a consequence of war. Jordan declared war and lost  the west bank. Syria used the Golan height to  bombard Israel, and lost the territory

 

Your argument assumes that the 2 million Israeli arabs will welcome having their influence diluted. Again, not going to happen.

 

Aside from the  double standard applied to Israel on the  requirement to have this magical parliament, while no such requirement is expected of any other nation in the region, it gives status to a majority of palestinians who had no connection to  the land now called Israel. I remind you that a majority of the palestinians are of Jordanian origin. There is a reason why Jordan has a majority palestinian population. Many of the palestinians are refugees from Gaza and other arab countries and not all are from Israel.

 

It is always Israel expected to bend to the will of the wealthy arabs and their enabling European supporters. The palestinians have been given opportunity after opportunity to settle but have   failed to do so. It is all or nothing with them and you should start with convincing the palestinians to stop teaching their children to hate through  counting exercises using dead jews. The Israeli position  recognizes the reality on the ground that the palestinians  do not want peace.  Start with making the demands of the arabs first. let them show some gestures of goodwill. They can start by using the funds they receive to build infrastructure and   institutions of higher learning rather than munitions. They can stop trying to kill Israelis and they might see a different response.

People like you condemned the separation barriers Israel erected, but suicide and terror bombings stopped once the arabs could not cross easily. There would have been no need for the barrier had there been no attacks.The Israeli  position isn't ideal, but it is the  result of decades of arab hostility and intransigence.

[DaddyWarbucks]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@dexterm

 

Not "my game", but rather your words. I was merely quoting what you posted and pointing out the discrepancy between description and fact, as applied to both people. Do go on about "disingenuous"...

 

The reality of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that neither group really wishes for the sort of "solution" you preach. There's too much bad blood, hatred and distrust to allow any stable, workable "one state". That's not to say that somewhere down the road, a long time from now, such "one state" will not be a reality. But for the foreseeable future, any such "solutions" spell nothing but further trouble. Pushing for this to happen now is misguided - whether through Netanyahu's actions or in accordance with your own rhetoric.

 

So far, nothing was annexed. There aren't even clear details as to what the supposed annexation actually spells. Netanyahu says a lot of things, that doesn't necessarily mean they all materialize, or that they are all true. So until it comes about, calling your description of the annexation a "reality" is not accurate,

 

I do not regard equal rights as utopian or unrealistic. I acknowledge that applying such while disregarding relevant realities, facts and context is, again, misguided. Most of the "free western world" does not have to address the sort of issues pertaining to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Importing solutions which work in one reality to a different one is not necessarily a recipe for success.

 

Never said anything about Israeli being an ideal society or even close to it. Barking up the wrong tree. There's also nothing in my posts which suggests the ongoing occupation, and certainly not annexation, are either right or in Israel's best interests. You've read enough of these to know where I stand, spare me the "condemn" nonsense.

 

IMO, the best way out of this is still a solution based on a two-state concept. No illusions as to it being an easy one. It's certainly less problematic, if not as sexy, as the imaginary utopia on offer.

I don't think a "utopia" is on offer by anyone.

The thing for Israel to avoid is a West Bank of bantustans and apartheid by any other name.

Then Israel - like South Africa before it - will self-destruct.

[dexterm]

32 minutes ago, DaddyWarbucks said:

Certainly a one-state solution with equal rights for all ignores the reality of the Middle East and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. No argument there.

Understandably the Israelis want something more than a dinky little country not much bigger than New Jersey.

The Palestinians want a sovereign state of their own but their incompetence and lack of good leadership have so far prevented any progress in that direction.

 

I don't know why one state with equal rights is somehow unrealistic, unlikely, let alone impossible..when you consider the temporary apartheid acrobatics involved in the alternative. About the time Zionists were ethnically cleansing half the population to create their state 73 years ago, my ancestors were killing Nazi Germans. Unthinkable today. Geopolitics, attitudes can and do change.

 

I agree Palestinian leadership has been poor. Its time Abbas actually did what he has bluffed he would do umpteen times. Hand the whole kit and caboodle security over to the Israelis and stop collaborating with them so that Israel can have an occupation on the cheap. If Israel annexes, then the PA is redundant anyway. Their brief was to facilitate a two state solution. That now ain't going to happen. Can you see Netanyahu, or any future Israeli or US government evicting hundreds of thousands of Israel settlers back to the 67 lines. Its gone too far. The time for that was 30 years ago. So lets face reality...a single state (it already is!); if you can't divide it fairly, then find a way to share it, and devote all energy into making that transition as painless and peaceful as possible. Can be done.

[dexterm]

10 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

It is not a deflection because the issue of the loss of  their assets and land is an integral part of the overall  problem. Those arabs of the jewish faith had nowhere to go, except Israel, few countries in the world were willing to accept them.  That is what  ethnic cleansing is. You say that the Israelis should share their land with palestinians.   Hardly a fair trade since the jewish arabs lost significant assets. WHo will compensate them? The arabs? Not likely. What about their land? 

Your argument ignores the multiple wars that the arabs waged on Israel. Loss of land and territory is a consequence of war. Jordan declared war and lost  the west bank. Syria used the Golan height to  bombard Israel, and lost the territory

 

Your argument assumes that the 2 million Israeli arabs will welcome having their influence diluted. Again, not going to happen.

 

Aside from the  double standard applied to Israel on the  requirement to have this magical parliament, while no such requirement is expected of any other nation in the region, it gives status to a majority of palestinians who had no connection to  the land now called Israel. I remind you that a majority of the palestinians are of Jordanian origin. There is a reason why Jordan has a majority palestinian population. Many of the palestinians are refugees from Gaza and other arab countries and not all are from Israel.

 

It is always Israel expected to bend to the will of the wealthy arabs and their enabling European supporters. The palestinians have been given opportunity after opportunity to settle but have   failed to do so. It is all or nothing with them and you should start with convincing the palestinians to stop teaching their children to hate through  counting exercises using dead jews. The Israeli position  recognizes the reality on the ground that the palestinians  do not want peace.  Start with making the demands of the arabs first. let them show some gestures of goodwill. They can start by using the funds they receive to build infrastructure and   institutions of higher learning rather than munitions. They can stop trying to kill Israelis and they might see a different response.

People like you condemned the separation barriers Israel erected, but suicide and terror bombings stopped once the arabs could not cross easily. There would have been no need for the barrier had there been no attacks.The Israeli  position isn't ideal, but it is the  result of decades of arab hostility and intransigence.

 

One question re the elephant in the room:  what do you think Israel realistically* should do with the majority Palestinian population from the Med to the Jordan when the Jewish minority annexes the West Bank ?

 

*Acceptable to most Palestinians and US, EU, and the international community to the extent that they will endorse it at the UN. So that there can be permanent peace there.

[DaddyWarbucks]

17 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I think that's one of the few posts you've made on these topics which I can (mostly) agree with.

 

The "want something more than a dinky little country..." though, not so much. If this was about territory per se, then Israel would have opted keeping the Sinai Peninsula (or at least bargained to keep some existing assets there). Sort of the same applies to the Gaza Strip. What makes the West Bank different is, as ever, the religious element. In terms of demographics and real estate, it's still a flop.

It's a flop because it's occupied by people who refuse to leave.

As was Mandate Palestine before it became Israel.

The methods used to clear the land then can no longer be used today.

If they can't coexist, the Palestinians will have to be expelled one way or another.

How to do that without becoming a worldwide pariah is the problem facing the Israelis. 

[Morch]

31 minutes ago, DaddyWarbucks said:

I don't think a "utopia" is on offer by anyone.

The thing for Israel to avoid is a West Bank of bantustans and apartheid by any other name.

Then Israel - like South Africa before it - will self-destruct.

 

The sort of one-state "solution" offered by the other poster is certainly utopian - and detached from reality.

Netanyahu & Co.'s actions possibly leading Israel (and the Palestinians) toward a dystopian future is indeed an issue. To express support for the latter in order to promote the former is, IMO, wrong on both moral and practical grounds.

[dexterm]

59 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@dexterm

 

Not "my game", but rather your words. I was merely quoting what you posted and pointing out the discrepancy between description and fact, as applied to both people. Do go on about "disingenuous"...

 

The reality of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that neither group really wishes for the sort of "solution" you preach. There's too much bad blood, hatred and distrust to allow any stable, workable "one state". That's not to say that somewhere down the road, a long time from now, such "one state" will not be a reality. But for the foreseeable future, any such "solutions" spell nothing but further trouble. Pushing for this to happen now is misguided - whether through Netanyahu's actions or in accordance with your own rhetoric.

 

So far, nothing was annexed. There aren't even clear details as to what the supposed annexation actually spells. Netanyahu says a lot of things, that doesn't necessarily mean they all materialize, or that they are all true. So until it comes about, calling your description of the annexation a "reality" is not accurate,

 

I do not regard equal rights as utopian or unrealistic. I acknowledge that applying such while disregarding relevant realities, facts and context is, again, misguided. Most of the "free western world" does not have to address the sort of issues pertaining to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Importing solutions which work in one reality to a different one is not necessarily a recipe for success.

 

Never said anything about Israeli being an ideal society or even close to it. Barking up the wrong tree. There's also nothing in my posts which suggests the ongoing occupation, and certainly not annexation, are either right or in Israel's best interests. You've read enough of these to know where I stand, spare me the "condemn" nonsense.

 

IMO, the best way out of this is still a solution based on a two-state concept. No illusions as to it being an easy one. It's certainly less problematic, if not as sexy, as the imaginary utopia on offer.

I think you are just kicking the can down the road re date/extent of annexation.

 

In the spirit of interesting discussion I address the same questions to you as to Daddywarbucks... 

Can you see Netanyahu, or any future Israeli or US government evicting hundreds of thousands of Israel settlers back to the 67 lines to create the two states, a shared capital in East Jerusalem, some sort of recognition of Palestinian refugee problem that Palestinians are willing to accept ..ergo permanent peace. And if not, what is the realistic alternative?

If Israeli settlers are currently upset with Trump's annexation plan because in their eyes it gives Palestinians control of a few segregated roads, how on earth are they going to agree to your vague "two state concept" which would have to give lots more before Palestinians would sign a permanent peace agereement.

and Geriatrickid..

What do you think Israel realistically should do with the majority Palestinian population from the Med to the Jordan when the Jewish minority annexes the West Bank ?
*Acceptable to most Palestinians and US, EU, and the international community to the extent that they will endorse it at the UN. So that there can be permanent peace there.
 

[Morch]

36 minutes ago, dexterm said:

I don't know why one state with equal rights is somehow unrealistic, unlikely, let alone impossible..when you consider the temporary apartheid acrobatics involved in the alternative. About the time Zionists were ethnically cleansing half the population to create their state 73 years ago, my ancestors were killing Nazi Germans. Unthinkable today. Geopolitics, attitudes can and do change.

 

I agree Palestinian leadership has been poor. Its time Abbas actually did what he has bluffed he would do umpteen times. Hand the whole kit and caboodle security over to the Israelis and stop collaborating with them so that Israel can have an occupation on the cheap. If Israel annexes, then the PA is redundant anyway. Their brief was to facilitate a two state solution. That now ain't going to happen. Can you see Netanyahu, or any future Israeli or US government evicting hundreds of thousands of Israel settlers back to the 67 lines. Its gone too far. The time for that was 30 years ago. So lets face reality...a single state (it already is!); if you can't divide it fairly, then find a way to share it, and devote all energy into making that transition as painless and peaceful as possible. Can be done.

 

You seem to intentionally confuse the ideal and the real, then applying the virtue signalling thing on this faulty base.

 

Israel, as a society, is not quite as "enlightened" or democratic as many Western countries. And for sure, Palestinian society is even more backwards on these issues. The notion that you could take these two societies and merge them into a single entity without things going pear-shaped real quick is preposterous.

 

Also, them Western countries touted as example took their time reaching their current level of civil harmony (such as it is, can be debated). Decades, if not centuries. Geopolitics and attitudes can change, but this takes a long time, and is not necessarily a product of artificial interventions.

 

Palestinian leadership is not just Abbas. There's that other faction you loath to discuss. There are many other forces inside the PA and the PLO. Laying it all on Abbas is not a serious proposition. Defining Abbas as a failure solely for not embracing an armchair revolutionary program is ridiculous.

 

If one believes that geopolitics and attitudes can change, then one must at least acknowledge that such changes may apply with regard to the possibility of a two-state solution.

[Morch]

38 minutes ago, DaddyWarbucks said:

It's a flop because it's occupied by people who refuse to leave.

As was Mandate Palestine before it became Israel.

The methods used to clear the land then can no longer be used today.

If they can't coexist, the Palestinians will have to be expelled one way or another.

How to do that without becoming a worldwide pariah is the problem facing the Israelis. 

 

In "flop" I meant that despite all efforts, no mass movement of population occurred. By and large, the Israeli public doesn't see life in the West Bank as a great proposition. And those that did go there for real estate reasons aren't the ones it will be hard to evacuate. There are various figures tossed around regarding the actual ideological, or hardcore, population which will pose a problem. I think that leaving out several of the more established settlements (mostly those on the "border"), implies the relevant figure is about half of what's usually referenced.

 

It's a "flop" in the sense that, bottom line, the marketing (ideological and territorial) to the Israeli public failed.

 

As for the rest, we'll return to our mutual disagreement as to your grasp of related historical fact, or the mixing of such with current political positions.

[Morch]

25 minutes ago, dexterm said:

I think you are just kicking the can down the road re date/extent of annexation.

 

In the spirit of interesting discussion I address the same questions to you as to Daddywarbucks... 

Can you see Netanyahu, or any future Israeli or US government evicting hundreds of thousands of Israel settlers back to the 67 lines to create the two states, a shared capital in East Jerusalem, some sort of recognition of Palestinian refugee problem that Palestinians are willing to accept ..ergo permanent peace. And if not, what is the realistic alternative?

If Israeli settlers are currently upset with Trump's annexation plan because in their eyes it gives Palestinians control of a few segregated roads, how on earth are they going to agree to your vague "two state concept" which would have to give lots more before Palestinians would sign a permanent peace agereement.

and Geriatrickid..

What do you think Israel realistically should do with the majority Palestinian population from the Med to the Jordan when the Jewish minority annexes the West Bank ?
*Acceptable to most Palestinians and US, EU, and the international community to the extent that they will endorse it at the UN. So that there can be permanent peace there.
 

 

Define "kicking the can down the road". I'm not denying historical processes, geopolitical changes and whatnot. My position is that these things take their course, and that pushing them along is not helpful.

 

Discussion implies an exchange of ideas, I don't see you actually do much of that in an honest and open manner. Posing questions while not really addressing issues and points raised by others, is not much of a discussion.

 

As said on a previous post, if one claims to believe historical and geopolitical changes are possible, then it would be difficult to assert that these may follow only one path. Israeli Prime Ministers offered more or less what's underlined on at least two instances. Pretending not to be aware of this doesn't alter the fact. May this happen again? Under current conditions, no. But then these aren't set in stone. Peace between Egypt and Israel seemed far-fetched until it came about. Talks were held regarding the Golan Heights. All sort of things are possible.

 

I note once more that you fail to acknowledge there's no agreed upon Palestinian position regarding peace, never mind even an agreed upon leadership to decide such issues. How them illegal settlers will react is an issue, but how Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other elements see things is apparently unimportant. Kinda makes them "vague" and "interesting discussion" bits laughable.

[StreetCowboy]

21 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

Ok, and what of the million or so arabs of jewish faith forced to flee from Arab countries? Where is their  settlement/compensation? Will they be given their lands and property back? Will they be allowed to live in peace?  The Arab countries won't take them back. Where do you want them to go, now that most have settled in israel.

 

Your argument is  very nice but it ignores these people. Do they not have rights too? The Egyptians forced their jews out with  less than 72 hours notice. The streets of  Iraq and Tunisia ran red with the slaughter of their jews who had lived there for centuries.

 

What is your solution for these people?

 

Are you quite sure that seizing Palestinian lands will solve those problems?

 

Good on you, mate - I thought that believing Scotland would win the Cup in '78 in Argentina was extravagant!

[dexterm]

47 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You seem to intentionally confuse the ideal and the real, then applying the virtue signalling thing on this faulty base.

 

Israel, as a society, is not quite as "enlightened" or democratic as many Western countries. And for sure, Palestinian society is even more backwards on these issues. The notion that you could take these two societies and merge them into a single entity without things going pear-shaped real quick is preposterous.

 

Also, them Western countries touted as example took their time reaching their current level of civil harmony (such as it is, can be debated). Decades, if not centuries. Geopolitics and attitudes can change, but this takes a long time, and is not necessarily a product of artificial interventions.

 

Palestinian leadership is not just Abbas. There's that other faction you loath to discuss. There are many other forces inside the PA and the PLO. Laying it all on Abbas is not a serious proposition. Defining Abbas as a failure solely for not embracing an armchair revolutionary program is ridiculous.

 

If one believes that geopolitics and attitudes can change, then one must at least acknowledge that such changes may apply with regard to the possibility of a two-state solution.

>>The notion that you could take these two societies and merge them into a single entity without things going pear-shaped real quick is preposterous.

..except of course that is exactly the reality today. It's already a pear-shaped single state. Settlers aren't willing to leave, no-one is willing to make em, Palestinians aren't willing to accept (and who can blame them?) Trump's annexation plan whereby they may get 15% of land they once had 100% of ... if they are well behaved... in 4 years time... but European colonists get the rest and control security in the 15% where Palestinians live too. Jared's plan aint going to happen is it? Well it aint going to bring permanent peace, which ought to be the goal. Lets get real!

 

So all you have to offer is that Israel's move towards overt apartheid is "indeed an issue" (what an understatement!), call others' solutions unrealistic, but have nothing to offer oneself other than a vague "two state concept"...yet no pathway as to how that can be achieved. This is exactly the same smoke and mirrors game that EU, US and Israeli governments have been playing since Oslo when Palestinians were offered negotiations towards a state within 5 years...that was 27 years ago!

 

Often as we have seen in recent events US and worldwide, politicians' obfuscation doesn't make the problems go away. Israel is already in a one state solution. Don't know how on earth they can extricate themselves from it. They should be focusing on social engineering ways to make the transition to a truly democratic society for all as peaceful as possible, not highway interchange engineering, tunnelling and wall building to separate people who will inevitably be geographical neighbors for eternity.

Edited June 9, 2020 by dexterm

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

Try reading my post again - merging the two societies into a single entity is not much of a viable solution. It doesn't work under the current state of things, it wouldn't work if Israel actually goes through with full annexation and it won't happen by the sort of social engineering you seem to be eager to foist on the two people.

 

The settlers aren't all as hyper invested in ideology, or even religion. Under certain conditions, some may leave, others won't (addressed in a previous post). Currently, no one will "make them", but again, this may change. The Palestinians will reject Trump's plan, sure. What of it? Or do you somehow imagine things end with Trump's plan? It's not even a given it will be carried out. Other than in alternative historical narratives the Palestinian never "had 100%" of anything. And, of course, you keep ignoring them Palestinians who won't accept pretty much any plan, or organizations representing such views.

 

As for getting real, I never said anything about Trump's plan bringing peace, or even "happen". Quite the opposite. Regarding the faux complaints about not giving a more detailed account of what a two-state solution may look like or how to get there - this was discussed on numerous past topics, in which you participated. Every now and then you'll claim no such details were given, be proven wrong and then pull this BS again. Laying all the blame for negotiations not bearing fruit on one side is not a serious point of view for anyone moderately familiar with facts.

 

Putting aside your version of the one-state solution doesn't involve much detail that's in touch with reality (that is, not glossing over all the hard, uncomfortable bits, even those pertaining to the side you claim to support), let's try a more simple approach to understand things. Either category of solutions (one state or two states) involves massive difficulties. Assuming such difficulties, in as much as they can be compared, are of a similar scale, one of the main factors remaining would be popular support and positions. Outside of extreme left-wing echo chambers and fringe venues, there is not much enthusiasm with a one-state solution. Neither people's narratives and wishes conform with this notion. A two-state solution, while not fully realizing either side's dreams, allows retaining enough of these to make it an easier to digest option. The way I see it, resolving the conflict would be better served by adopting an approach incorporating the views and wishes of the people involved, rather than foisting imported ideas, ideologies and "solutions" which fail to relate to these.

 

Other than in your posts, Israel is not a "one state solution". My guess is that your take on matters is mostly based on like-minded accounts, rather than having much by way of first hand experience. Casting this as something Israel ought to "extricate" itself out of, while the Palestinians are relegated to a passive role (other than the prescribed armchair revolutionary course of action) similarly conveys the same lack of interest (or knowledge) as to actual Palestinian positions and views. Somehow, in your posts and narrative, the Palestinians are forever passive, needing either Israel, The West, or The World, to sort things out for them. Coming from someone banging on about colonialism, treating the Palestinians as unable to take charge of their fate, independently decide a course of action, or having aspirations different from those you propose is bizarre.

 

[candide]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

Somehow, in your posts and narrative, the Palestinians are forever passive, needing either Israel, The West, or The World, to sort things out for them. Coming from someone banging on about colonialism, treating the Palestinians as unable to take charge of their fate, independently decide a course of action, or having aspirations different from those you propose is bizarre.

While I acknowledge your ability to address complexity, this position seems to be quite theoretical. Palestinians may decide whatever they want, they simply don't have much power to get it implemented. 

[Morch]

3 hours ago, candide said:

While I acknowledge your ability to address complexity, this position seems to be quite theoretical. Palestinians may decide whatever they want, they simply don't have much power to get it implemented. 

 

The above can be addressed on several levels. Most of them were discussed, at length, on plenty of topics.

 

What does "power" mean in this context and what prevents the Palestinian from having it? I don't wish to get bogged in comparative historical debate, which would surly go off topic detailing examples and minute facts, but I think it can be generally asserted that how people deal with achieving comparable goals comes down to two main alternatives. They either organize and act in an effective manner, or they don't.

 

If one looks at the history (such as it is) of the Palestinian people, there's an obvious lack of being able and willing to handle things related to their lot in a constructive, realistic and effective manner. This can be attributed to cultural factors, lower level of cohesion as group, being overly reliant on Arab (and later on, international) sponsors, and so on and so forth.

 

That the Palestinians currently do not have much power on the international front, and they seem unable to muster much of an effective domestic resistance is true. Holding anyone and anything but themselves responsible to this state of things is a choice (and again, not a constructive one).

 

The poster I was replying to often prescribes various ways the Palestinians ought to deal things. Most of these suggestions fail to bear much relation to issues such as the Palestinian political scene, traditional society/value set, or even the schisms which hamper their ability to act in an effective manner. 

 

Considering the Palestinian troubles organizing toward having a state, I think it fair to wonder how they might fare if they actually got one. Same thing, and even more so, applies for any one-state "solution". Expecting the Palestinians to simultaneously embrace democratic ways, iron or drop their issues with Israel, let go of national aspirations, bridge some serious cultural and economic gaps is unrealistic. Not when  they very same people are continuously cast as passive and clueless.  

 

Power, no matter how one defines it, cannot be fully endowed from an outside source.