Israelis protest Netanyahu's annexation plan

[Chomper Higgot]

19 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

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.

I’m not sure on what basis it is ‘fair’ to wonder how they [the Palestinians] would fare if they got [a Palestinian State].

 

It’s certainly an odd statement when you earlier argued the time it took other nations to establish themselves.

 

Perhaps the Palestinians wish to

enjoy rights of self determination, like others do.

 

A warm welcome back by the way.

Edited June 11, 2020 by Chomper Higgot

[dexterm]

10 hours ago, Morch said:

 

@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.

 

You imply that the conflict is a level playing field between equal partners which of course it isn't. Israel has all the guns and power and a very influential worldwide lobby. The only weapon Palestinians have is a refusal to accept subjugation in order to legitimize Israel's land theft, which drives Israel mad - the one thing they can't control. 

 

You did indeed outline a path to peace but some years ago now, based roughly on a two state solution along the 67 lines, which you keep falling back on as though you have dealt with the matter. I think you also suggested mass demonstrations. The Palestinians tried that too, and the IDF mowed them down in a turkey shoot. The EU and US nicely expressed their concern however.

 

Times have changed since then...Trump election, embassy move, his faux deal of the century, further settlement expansion, forthcoming annexation, and the likelihood of a two state solution a distant memory. I'd be very interested to know how you think Palestinians can achieve what you have now toned down to a two state concept. Is that a euphemism for accepting any sort of "less than a state" autonomy that Israel is willing to offer, while in reality Israel continues to control everything that happens in historic Palestine...land, air, sea, immigration, economy and security...in other words, no change.

 

Has your rejection of occupation as illegal now morphed into an acceptance of Israel's offering of crumbs? Or do you regard annexation as illegal too?

 

All Palestinians can do is stay where they are, while Israel builds the infrastructure of overt apartheid around them, and sleepwalks into a one state solution. 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m not sure on what basis it is ‘fair’ to wonder how they [the Palestinians] would fare if they got [a Palestinian State].

 

It’s certainly an odd statement when you earlier argued the time it took other nations to establish themselves.

 

Perhaps the Palestinians wish to

enjoy rights of self determination, like others do.

 

A warm welcome back by the way.

 

There's no contradiction. My earlier comment was referring to the standard exhibited by Western nations. In almost all cases, reaching their current "level" involved centuries of social changes, and people organizing in a constructive manner toward attaining certain goals.

 

Palestinian nationalism, if one wishes to be generous, can be said to have emerged in the 1920's. If taken in historical context, still a ways to go on any level addressed. Adding the cultural background doesn't do much either to accelerate the process.

 

There's nothing in my posts or views which denies Palestinians have the right to self-determination. That said, having doubts as to their capacity to handle self-determination is quite reasonable, given the issues noted above and earlier.

 

Adding a forced and swift union with the Palestinian's most bitter enemy, and expecting the Palestinians to just slide into the ways of Western democracies is a "bit" over the top.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

There's no contradiction. My earlier comment was referring to the standard exhibited by Western nations. In almost all cases, reaching their current "level" involved centuries of social changes, and people organizing in a constructive manner toward attaining certain goals.

 

Palestinian nationalism, if one wishes to be generous, can be said to have emerged in the 1920's. If taken in historical context, still a ways to go on any level addressed. Adding the cultural background doesn't do much either to accelerate the process.

 

There's nothing in my posts or views which denies Palestinians have the right to self-determination. That said, having doubts as to their capacity to handle self-determination is quite reasonable, given the issues noted above and earlier.

 

Adding a forced and swift union with the Palestinian's most bitter enemy, and expecting the Palestinians to just slide into the ways of Western democracies is a "bit" over the top.

I’m no sure why the ways of western democracies need be the only model, but in the matter of externally forcing any solution I agree, it would be impossible to achieve.

 

Sadly external forces destabilizing a society is demonstrated to be achievable.

 

Self determination is not simply a matter of not forcing a settlement, it also one of not forcing division and destabilization.

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

I do not imply any level playing field. What I do insist on is that the Palestinians contributed and continue to contribute to their circumstances. A level playing field is not a requirement for a self-determination struggle to be successful. Most historical instances did not involve a level playing field.

 

I have reviewed, in more or less detailed versions, what a two-state solution may involve. I've done so on more than one post, certainly not just a few years ago. Kindly stop with this silliness, it gets old. As for the "mass demonstrations" bit, another attempt at muddying of the waters. Claiming the protests along the Gaza border were peaceful is a choice, facts suggest otherwise. When done properly (during the Temple Mount detector standoff) it was very effective. Like it or not, peaceful protest is still not a fully embraced option as far as the Palestinians go.

 

The "times have changes" part is ridiculous. Trump's term will end, and he may not win the upcoming elections. So far, most of the "legacy" is hot air and props. Make up your mind, please - if geopolitical changes are a thing, then Trump and his silly plan aren't necessarily a major instance, or at least, nothing which can't be undone, changed or dealt with. Not sure how you reconcile berating Trump and his plan with blowing it up to the level of some historical nexus. Then again, not expecting much consistency.

 

I haven't "toned down" anything. Call it a two-state solution, a two-state concept - same thing. As to less-then-a-state, it would surly be so, on some issues (mostly security related) and at least for a time. That's nothing new, and not something which even Palestinian representatives to negotiations had wholesale disagreements with.

 

The Palestinians could have already been living in their own state since 1948. Several other chances over the decades that followed. Had they gone down that road, maybe things would be different now. To date, the insistence of not accepting reality, didn't do their cause much good.

 

I have no idea why you insist misrepresenting my views as supportive of Trump's plan, or the possibility of annexation. There's nothing in any of my posts which suggests such "morphing" of positions.

 

If the Palestinians are, as you portray, only capable of being passive observers while others determine their fate, it might serve to indicate that they aren't quite ready for either self-determination or partaking in a democratic, multicultural experience.

Edited June 11, 2020 by Morch

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

There's no contradiction. My earlier comment was referring to the standard exhibited by Western nations. In almost all cases, reaching their current "level" involved centuries of social changes, and people organizing in a constructive manner toward attaining certain goals.

 

Palestinian nationalism, if one wishes to be generous, can be said to have emerged in the 1920's. If taken in historical context, still a ways to go on any level addressed. Adding the cultural background doesn't do much either to accelerate the process.

 

There's nothing in my posts or views which denies Palestinians have the right to self-determination. That said, having doubts as to their capacity to handle self-determination is quite reasonable, given the issues noted above and earlier.

 

Adding a forced and swift union with the Palestinian's most bitter enemy, and expecting the Palestinians to just slide into the ways of Western democracies is a "bit" over the top.

Who are you to say whether palestinians are ready or not. The right to self determination should be for palestinians to decide, whether you think they should or could is irrelevant. 

 

Why should palestinians be forced into anything. Its their choice whether they want a western democracy or not.

 

Australia didnt take centuries.

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, dexterm said:

You imply that the conflict is a level playing field between equal partners which of course it isn't. Israel has all the guns and power and a very influential worldwide lobby. The only weapon Palestinians have is a refusal to accept subjugation in order to legitimize Israel's land theft, which drives Israel mad - the one thing they can't control. 

 

You did indeed outline a path to peace but some years ago now, based roughly on a two state solution along the 67 lines, which you keep falling back on as though you have dealt with the matter. I think you also suggested mass demonstrations. The Palestinians tried that too, and the IDF mowed them down in a turkey shoot. The EU and US nicely expressed their concern however.

 

Times have changed since then...Trump election, embassy move, his faux deal of the century, further settlement expansion, forthcoming annexation, and the likelihood of a two state solution a distant memory. I'd be very interested to know how you think Palestinians can achieve what you have now toned down to a two state concept. Is that a euphemism for accepting any sort of "less than a state" autonomy that Israel is willing to offer, while in reality Israel continues to control everything that happens in historic Palestine...land, air, sea, immigration, economy and security...in other words, no change.

 

Has your rejection of occupation as illegal now morphed into an acceptance of Israel's offering of crumbs? Or do you regard annexation as illegal too?

 

All Palestinians can do is stay where they are, while Israel builds the infrastructure of overt apartheid around them, and sleepwalks into a one state solution. 

You have far too much patience to keep correcting the blatant misrepresentations by some.

[Morch]

50 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m no sure why the ways of western democracies need be the only model, but in the matter of externally forcing any solution I agree, it would be impossible to achieve.

 

Sadly external forces destabilizing a society is demonstrated to be achievable.

 

Self determination is not simply a matter of not forcing a settlement, it also one of not forcing division and destabilization.

 

I was originally responding to posts setting Western democracies and ways as the standard. My own posts often acknowledge that neither Israelis nor Palestinians can generally be said to fully exhibit these. Other models are certainly possible, if not quite acceptable for those insisting on ideal solutions.

 

External forces destabilizing a society would apply to both Israelis and Palestinians if a one-state "solution" was to be shoved down their collective throats. I doubt the results would be anything but destructive, at least for the foreseeable future. More likely it will become just another generic Middle Eastern failed state, with vengeance.

 

Two-state solutions, for all their faults and problems, have somewhat better chances of not deteriorating into a prolonged civil war. Not perfect, just better.

[dexterm]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

@dexterm

 

I do not imply any level playing field. What I do insist on is that the Palestinians contributed and continue to contribute to their circumstances. A level playing field is not a requirement for a self-determination struggle to be successful. Most historical instances did not involve a level playing field.

 

I have reviewed, in more or less detailed versions, what a two-state solution may involve. I've done so on more than one post, certainly not just a few years ago. Kindly stop with this silliness, it gets old. As for the "mass demonstrations" bit, another attempt at muddying of the waters. Claiming the protests along the Gaza border were peaceful is a choice, facts suggest otherwise. When done properly (during the Temple Mount detector standoff) it was very effective. Like it or not, peaceful protest is still not a fully embraced option as far as the Palestinians go.

 

The "times have changes" part is ridiculous. Trump's term will end, and he may not win the upcoming elections. So far, most of the "legacy" is hot air and props. Make up your mind, please - if geopolitical changes are a thing, then Trump and his silly plan aren't necessarily a major instance, or at least, nothing which can't be undone, changed or dealt with. Not sure how you reconcile berating Trump and his plan with blowing it up to the level of some historical nexus. Then again, not expecting much consistency.

 

I haven't "toned down" anything. Call it a two-state solution, a two-state concept - same thing. As to less-then-a-state, it would surly be so, on some issues (mostly security related) and at least for a time. That's nothing new, and not something which even Palestinian representatives to negotiations had wholesale disagreements with.

 

The Palestinians could have already been living in their own state since 1948. Several other chances over the decades that followed. Had they gone down that road, maybe things would be different now. To date, the insistence of not accepting reality, didn't do their cause much good.

 

I have no idea why you insist misrepresenting my views as supportive of Trump's plan, or the possibility of annexation. There's nothing in any of my posts which suggests such "morphing" of positions.

 

If the Palestinians are, as you portray, only capable of being passive observers while others determine their fate, it might serve to indicate that they aren't quite ready for either self-determination or partaking in a democratic, multicultural experience.

>>I have reviewed, in more or less detailed versions, what a two-state solution may involve. I've done so on more than one post, certainly not just a few years ago.
Evasive. You are still hiding behind the lame excuse: we have been over all this before routine. 
I tried to date the last time you outlined your pathway to peace ..looks like 2014.

Perhaps time you updated how your two state "concept" could be achieved in the light of changes on the ground since 6 years ago. Would make the discussion more intelligible.

 

There is a difference. "Solution" implies acceptability; "concept" is what Trump is offering at the moment with his Annexation Plan...not a snowball in hell's chance of being acceptable or bringing about permanent peace.

 

Israel relies on facts on the ground as a fait accomplit, see how the world reacts, and if the usual weak response, try for more next time. 

 

Even if Biden wins I doubt he will wind back the embassy move or make next month's Israeli annexation plans illegal. I just hope we don't get another 4 years of smoke and mirrors.

 

But either way it doesn't matter. A two state solution has been made impossible and is about to be made more so, making a single state inevitable.

 

The single secular democratic state I have outlined in the past and am perfectly willing to detail again is not an overnight affair, nor something rammed down their throats by others, but a gradual negotiated transformation encouraging reconciliation.

Edited June 11, 2020 by dexterm

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Sujo said:

Who are you to say whether palestinians are ready or not. The right to self determination should be for palestinians to decide, whether you think they should or could is irrelevant. 

 

Why should palestinians be forced into anything. Its their choice whether they want a western democracy or not.

 

Australia didnt take centuries.

 

Let's try again. Palestinian have the right to self-determination. If I was to deny this, you would have had a valid point. Only I did not deny this, not in the posts above nor on past topics. Quite the opposite.

 

What I referred to is the Palestinians potential for applying the right to self-determination in a constructive manner. Given how they managed their affairs to date, what sort of leaders came to the front, the values and traditions their society relies on, it would be hard to cast them as great candidates for instant democracy.

 

I'm not into forcing Palestinians into anything. Barking up the wrong tree. And I'm not the one banging on about "western democracy" as a standard and model, the poster I replied  to was. Try to keep up.

 

Australia didn't take centuries? Well, considering white folk came from Europe, with it's emerging social changes, and that the aborigines mainly got sidelined and shafted, that's not such a great example.

[dexterm]

34 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Let's try again. Palestinian have the right to self-determination. If I was to deny this, you would have had a valid point. Only I did not deny this, not in the posts above nor on past topics. Quite the opposite.

 

What I referred to is the Palestinians potential for applying the right to self-determination in a constructive manner. Given how they managed their affairs to date, what sort of leaders came to the front, the values and traditions their society relies on, it would be hard to cast them as great candidates for instant democracy.

 

I'm not into forcing Palestinians into anything. Barking up the wrong tree. And I'm not the one banging on about "western democracy" as a standard and model, the poster I replied  to was. Try to keep up.

 

Australia didn't take centuries? Well, considering white folk came from Europe, with it's emerging social changes, and that the aborigines mainly got sidelined and shafted, that's not such a great example.

So where can indigenous Palestinians achieve their self determination..inside the whole of their ancestral homeland of Palestine or inside 15% of it after Israel annexes the rest?

 

How do you reconcile Israel's Nation State Law
"The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People#Content_of_the_Basic_Law

and Netanyahu's statement:"Israel is not a state of all its citizens. According to the basic nationality law we passed, Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people - and only it."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-47524518

 

Why not both peoples achieve their self determination in a single state in a bicameral parliament or confederation?

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

Kindly stop trolling. We have discussed this on multiple topics. Cherry-picking an early example means less than nothing. If you wish to claim this wasn't discussed, in detail and ad ad nauseam on many past topics that would be another example of ignoring reality and fact.

 

Even if your bogus complaint had something to it, nothing fundamental changed with regard to the core elements. Unless, of course, one hypes Trump's moves and plan (while at the same time berating it, but eh...). As for the petty comment on "solution" vs. "concept", already made clear that no real difference was intended. By the way, "solution" doesn't imply acceptability - for example neither one-state or two-state are acceptable by all (or even most) people involved.

 

And yes, whether through government policies or initiatives by the settler movement, slow advances by setting facts on the ground and gradually moving the goal posts is how things are carried out. In this context, the danger of Trump plan is not that it will be fully implemented, but that it would provide further opportunity for such gradual advances, setting a new normal - and making rollback ever more troublesome.

 

It ought to be pointed out that the Palestinian way of responding to such moves and policies is usually ineffectual or even counterproductive. The same goes for the sage advice, edicts and prescriptions that often appear in your posts. As detailed in other posts, I think the Palestinians are hamstrung by their culture, history and rhetoric when it comes to evolving better ways to deal with their situation. Most of your what-the-Palestinians-ought-to-do stuff barely relates to these underlying issues.

 

The Embassy move hardly registered in any meaningful way. It doesn't imply anything irreversible, even. Treating the Annexation thing as an already full blown reality, is a choice. I am not aware that there are concrete details on what exactly will be announced, or even if it will happen. Some reports suggest that the Trump administration conditions condoning moves on wide coalition support and that too, for a very limited version of such. It is worth reminding that Israel did pull out of conquered territories on previous occasions, some involving evictions of settlers and disbanding of settlements. Obviously much harder to do with regard to the West Bank, but not impossible, given the right circumstances.

 

Other than yourself, and others on the fringe left, there's little enthusiasm in either community of becoming one. Considering you do not exhibit much actual familiarity or knowledge with either community, insist on ignoring uncomfortable issues, and being extremely biased toward one group, there is little to recommend that your assertions are based on solid ground.

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

Once more, I'm all for the Palestinians having their right of self-determination in a state of their own, preferably encompassing most of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, plus any extra territory exchanged with Israel under agreement. Insisting on treating Trump's plan as either viable or representing my views is off mark. That's not even the first time I've made this clear, and still you persist.

 

Israel's Nation State Law is flawed, and it would have been better if it wasn't enacted. Netanyahu's words ought to be condemned. I don't think I had anything positive much to say about either on topics where such issues were discussed. Same comment as before - not views I agree with, and you're well aware of that. Also of note is the usual blind eye toward similar comments from the Palestinian side, apparently that's alright.

 

Both people aren't particularly interested in becoming one. That you believe that's the only way forward is fine, now go and convince them. The extreme versions of either side's narrative exclude the competition, and berate their claims. Pretty much the sort of rhetoric you engage in on each and every topic.

Edited June 11, 2020 by Morch

[dexterm]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

@dexterm

 

Kindly stop trolling. We have discussed this on multiple topics. Cherry-picking an early example means less than nothing. If you wish to claim this wasn't discussed, in detail and ad ad nauseam on many past topics that would be another example of ignoring reality and fact.

 

Even if your bogus complaint had something to it, nothing fundamental changed with regard to the core elements. Unless, of course, one hypes Trump's moves and plan (while at the same time berating it, but eh...). As for the petty comment on "solution" vs. "concept", already made clear that no real difference was intended. By the way, "solution" doesn't imply acceptability - for example neither one-state or two-state are acceptable by all (or even most) people involved.

 

And yes, whether through government policies or initiatives by the settler movement, slow advances by setting facts on the ground and gradually moving the goal posts is how things are carried out. In this context, the danger of Trump plan is not that it will be fully implemented, but that it would provide further opportunity for such gradual advances, setting a new normal - and making rollback ever more troublesome.

 

It ought to be pointed out that the Palestinian way of responding to such moves and policies is usually ineffectual or even counterproductive. The same goes for the sage advice, edicts and prescriptions that often appear in your posts. As detailed in other posts, I think the Palestinians are hamstrung by their culture, history and rhetoric when it comes to evolving better ways to deal with their situation. Most of your what-the-Palestinians-ought-to-do stuff barely relates to these underlying issues.

 

The Embassy move hardly registered in any meaningful way. It doesn't imply anything irreversible, even. Treating the Annexation thing as an already full blown reality, is a choice. I am not aware that there are concrete details on what exactly will be announced, or even if it will happen. Some reports suggest that the Trump administration conditions condoning moves on wide coalition support and that too, for a very limited version of such. It is worth reminding that Israel did pull out of conquered territories on previous occasions, some involving evictions of settlers and disbanding of settlements. Obviously much harder to do with regard to the West Bank, but not impossible, given the right circumstances.

 

Other than yourself, and others on the fringe left, there's little enthusiasm in either community of becoming one. Considering you do not exhibit much actual familiarity or knowledge with either community, insist on ignoring uncomfortable issues, and being extremely biased toward one group, there is little to recommend that your assertions are based on solid ground.

OK in the absence of any updates I'll take it that "nothing fundamental changed with regard to the core elements" to your 2014 pathway to a two state solution. Thank you. I have a copy of that. Just thought your views re the possibility of a 2 state solution you envisaged may have changed. Mine certainly have in the light of more recent developments not least of which the proposed annexation in 2 weeks time. I used to hold out hopes for a viable two state solution but not anymore.

 

We seem to agree "the danger of Trump plan is not that it will be fully implemented, but that it would provide further opportunity for such gradual advances, setting a new normal - and making rollback ever more troublesome."
Gradual advances? I would suggest that will make a two state solution not just troublesome, but impossible.

 

The more entrenched settlers become the more difficult (impossible?) it would be to wind back the clock. The best compromise would be a confederation but with more freedoms to live, work and worship in each other's states as in the EU. The best deal of all would be of course if both joined the EU. 

Your suggestion that a one state solution is a fringe left idea is nonsense. 
"Saeb Erekat, the veteran Palestinian negotiator, said that Mr. Trump’s declaration was the death knell for the two-state solution and that Palestinians should shift their focus to “one state with equal rights.” His position has since gained traction among the Palestinian leadership."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/05/world/middleeast/israel-palestinians-state.html

Even if it's only 30% at the moment supporting the notion, if annexation absolutely kills all hope of two states, people's attention will begin to focus on all they have left...one state, and how best to manage that.

[dexterm]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

@dexterm

 

Once more, I'm all for the Palestinians having their right of self-determination in a state of their own, preferably encompassing most of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, plus any extra territory exchanged with Israel under agreement. Insisting on treating Trump's plan as either viable or representing my views is off mark. That's not even the first time I've made this clear, and still you persist.

 

Israel's Nation State Law is flawed, and it would have been better if it wasn't enacted. Netanyahu's words ought to be condemned. I don't think I had anything positive much to say about either on topics where such issues were discussed. Same comment as before - not views I agree with, and you're well aware of that. Also of note is the usual blind eye toward similar comments from the Palestinian side, apparently that's alright.

 

Both people aren't particularly interested in becoming one. That you believe that's the only way forward is fine, now go and convince them. The extreme versions of either side's narrative exclude the competition, and berate their claims. Pretty much the sort of rhetoric you engage in on each and every topic.

Well, wonders never cease. I think we agree re Palestinian rights to self determination
"Once more, I'm all for the Palestinians having their right of self-determination in a state of their own, preferably encompassing most of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, plus any extra territory exchanged with Israel under agreement"
...big omission: status of Jerusalem and return of/acknowledgement of/compensation for all refugees (including Jewish).

 

I agree with you about Trump's unhelpful annexation plans, Jewish Nation State Law, and Netanyahu's racist pronouncements.

 

"Both people aren't particularly interested in becoming one." You may well be partially right at the moment. Possibly because the logistics have not been discussed or promoted while two states was still a possibility. What I am saying is Trump and Netanyahu's annexation moves are making a two state solution more impossible and a single state inevitable. That may help to focus their attention (and the world's) on the single state that they all have to live in.

 

Edited June 11, 2020 by dexterm

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

I'll ask you once more to stop trolling with your bogus claims regarding posts made or not made.

 

None of what you posted so far explains what actually changed. That is, as opposed to yourself treating stuff that might happen as reality. What "recent developments" had an actual impact which irrevocably altered the state of things? And while at it, why ignore the facts - it's not like Israel never signed a peace agreement with former enemies, returned or withdrew from conquered/held territories, or evacuated its citizens from such areas. 

 

You may suggest whatever regarding the annexation. But as it did not happen yet, and details are sparse, your "suggestions" aren't based on anything much. And even if it comes about, why assume it cannot be undone? Kinda funny how hyping or berating the chances of Trump's plan to come about fluctuate with whatever point you're trying to make.

 

I seriously doubt all, or even most, illegal settlers are ideological hardliners. Not when push comes to shove, at least. Under most formulations, many won't be evacuated anyway (ie territorial exchanges). Evacuating them, if and when, won't be easy by any means, but again, no need to over-hype the issue without much basis or support.

 

My suggestion that support for the one-state is largely a fringe view is not "nonsense". Nonsense would be relying on a piece by Halbfinger, in which almost all of the people interviewed answer to the labels of fringe and left. We've discussed at least one of them, in detail, on several occasions. Other than a quote by an individual invested in such efforts, the figures relating to support aren't detailed. Even the article itself, flawed as it is, takes some space to air issues with said positions. No wonder these don't feature in your account.

Edited June 11, 2020 by Morch

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

No wonders, just more trolling. Doubt I've posted anything denying Palestinian right to self-determination. Pretending otherwise, trying to misrepresent views - quite used to that from you by now.

 

There was no "omission". My post wasn't intended as a detailed list of all things falling under a possible two-state solution. All related issues were discussed numerous times on multiple topics.

 

You keep asserting, without much solid support or even directly addressing comments made, that the two-state solution is dead. That's not much of a discussion, not much of an well substantiated point of view.

 

People on either side aren't interested in a one-state solution because it goes against their core beliefs, the way they were educated, and the long troubled history between the parties. You want to assert they don't have a clue and that a total outsider knows better what's best for them? Go right ahead. But may wish to reflect on how this condescending position might be seen in light of the many anti-colonialism comments you make. Apparently, what counts aren't the wishes of involved people, but rather these of armchair social engineers.

 

Inevitable? Says who? And even if it was, it doesn't follow how and when it will come about.

[dexterm]

The forthcoming annexation is the final nail in the coffin of the two state solution. Other than  extreme outside pressure through sanctions no-one has offered me a shred of evidence that 600,000 Israeli Jewish settlers can be persuaded to withdraw to the 67 lines, share Jerusalem as a capital, and acknowledge the Palestinian refugee problem and their right of return to the West Bank - the 3 main conditions Palestinians and the whole Arab world will accept for a permanent two state peace.

 

So the OP annexation will bring about a single state - good. It would actually be in the best interests of both peoples, and I am not alone in that opinion. The writing's been on the wall for decades. 

 

50 years ago
A US National Intelligence Estimate stated: “If Israel continues to occupy conquered territory for an extended period, say two to three years, it will find it increasingly difficult to relinquish control. Domestic pressures to establish paramilitary settlements in occupied areas would grow, and it would be harder to turn back to the Arabs land which contained such settlements.” 
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/thinking-outside-the-two-state-box

 

4 years ago
John Kerry told Congress that the two-state solution had one to two years left before it would no longer be viable. 
Kerry Rebukes Israel, Calling Settlements a Threat to Peace
“The status quo is leading toward one state and perpetual occupation,” Mr. Kerry said, his voice animated.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/28/us/politics/john-kerry-israel-palestine-peace.html

 

4 years ago
UNSC Resolution 2334. The Security Council reaffirmed this afternoon that Israel’s establishment of settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, had no legal validity, constituting a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the vision of two States living side-by-side in peace and security, within internationally recognized borders."
https://www.un.org/press/en/2016/sc12657.doc.htm
Since then of course, Israel has continued to build and expand settlements...and now annexation.

 

3 years ago. even Donald...
“I am looking at two-state, and one-state, and I like the one that both parties like,” Trump (February 2017). And of course he's done everything he can to push for a single state, the one that Netanyahu likes that is.

 

Although Trump may appear to be indifferent to the one or two state solution, American voters may not be.

Increasing Number of Americans Prefer One-state Solution to Israel-Palestinian Conflict, U.S. Study Finds
A new poll surveying over 2,300 Americans shows growing support for giving Palestinians full and equal rights, even if that curtails Israel's Jewish character
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-more-and-more-americans-prefer-one-state-solution-study-finds-1.6741213

 

June 3 2020 last week! the Jerusalem Post
With the two-state solution dead, we must build for a new future
Eventually we will all come to realize that the only sustainable future for us in this land is to recognize that all of the people in the land belong to the land.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/with-the-two-state-solution-dead-we-must-build-for-a-new-future-630199

Edited June 11, 2020 by dexterm

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

So much for "interesting discussion" then, eh?

 

None of what you posted relates to questions raised earlier - what recent actual developments represent an irreversible obstacle? What is the Palestinians' role in this? What's the rationale making the judgement of fringe groups and outsiders override the sentiments of most people involved?

 

I doubt anyone seriously claims that the Israeli illegal settlements are not a major problem, or that the evacuation of these settlers would be easy. There are difficulties and issues involved with any solution, and those associated with a one-state solution are of similar, if not greater, magnitude. Similarly, try as you may, it cannot be denied nor ignored that the Palestinian side got it's own extremists - I don't see anything much in your posts beginning to address this on a realistic level, or even to the extent afforded to going on about Israel's.

 

What you pronounce as the "best interests" of both people is your opinion. It doesn't appear to be based on much actual acquaintance and familiarity with how things are and how both people see things. Citing this or that person invested in the same notion goes back to my earlier comment about echo chambers.

 

So other than citing opinion pieces, selectively quoting poll figures appearing in a muddled article, or rehashing politicians and UN statements which aren't exactly to the point, there's still no direct answer as to what recent actual events and circumstances changed.

 

And the other question remains - given that all this been going on for decades, and that the Israeli illegal settlements weren't that big an issue up to the 1980's, where were the Palestinians and the Palestinian leadership? Perhaps, had they been more forthcoming, pragmatic and realistic, things would have stood a better chance of being resolved before getting so complicated.

[tonbridgebrit]

On 6/8/2020 at 2:50 AM, dexterm said:

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!

Yes, I think you're right. The creation of a single state with an Israeli minority in control, and Palestinians having no vote but living in this state, will not be tolerated by the rest of the world.

Even the most pro-Zionists do know that creating this new state and then expelling the Palestinians (expel the Palestinians in Gaza to Egypt, expel the Palestinians in the West Bank to Jordan) will not be accepted by the rest of the world.

[TheDark]

Good for Israelis, who wish to protest against Trump of the middle east. 

 

It's a good reminder, while there are really nasty politicians leading the current state of Israel, there are also good people, who are against these right wing politicians. 

 

I hope their voice are allowed to be heard in Israel. Their voices resonates better with the rest of the world, who actually wish peace to persist in their homes and around the world.