You make it sound so simple. But it's not. The vast majority of Palestinians would vote for Hamas over Fatah now and the clearly stated agenda of Hamas is to never accept Israel with any borders, not to mention their openly stated genocidal intentions towards Jews. It's so easy for western "progressives" (many Jews too and shame on them) to favor policies that would basically be suicide for Israel. It takes two to tango. Neither side is blameless but to the obsessive Israel demonizers, it's all Israel's fault. That's total BS. It romanticizes the Palestinians as some kind of noble innocent brown people but guess what, they are not so noble. Especially when they're going at your throat with a knife just for being a Jew.

Agreed that what happens after the two state system wouldn't be simple, but it really is a simple choice,

Either create the two state system and deal with the consequences, or continue on with the status quo. The status quo, IMO, is unsustainable, given that the world is turning against Israel's occupation and illegal settlements, plus there are millions and millions of people surrounding Israel that want to do something about Israel, that won't be good for Israel.

Time and population growth is not on Israel's side.

There is still a small window of opportunity for Israel to do the right thing, but if they do not take it, the outcome is inevitable, and will not be to Israel's liking.

Yeah, that's the left wing line that Israel will just fall apart trying to keep the status quo, but so many of those left wingers are in the Israel demonization camp and that's exactly what they want. I'm not really sold that the status quo is really riskier to Israel than a neighboring Palestinian state run by genocidal Islamists.

Yes obviously the status quo is sucky, but again, it takes two to tango, and there isn't sincere leadership or support on EITHER side for productive peace negotiations, and that is needed on both sides. The BDS movement is about not talking to Israel. That approach is doomed.

Edited November 24, 201510 yr by Jingthing

sorry threa full.

Morch wrote..

As usual, you post a collection of cliches and slogans, which come down to the same thing - an opinionated stance, rejecting anything resembling understanding or compromise. Obviously, coming to terms with complex nature of reality is beyond the abilities of some, hence the need for over-simplified catchphrases.

As usual, you make an unqualified general claim, and got no intelligent answer when called out. The attempt to reiterate your usual lines, while ignoring what you actually posted is pathetically predictable.

Of course I have an opinionated stance. That's why it's called a forum.

i don't see why Palestinians should compromise any more, having been ethnically cleansed twice already. But amazingly they are willing to...to accept lands swaps in return for further land stolen by Israel in the West Bank on which Zionist colonies have been built since 1967. It is the frustration among Palestinian youths that Israel is too greedy even to accept that and continues in its daily occupation and repression. Hence the OP backlash.

IMO the racist Zionist state of Israel is ultimately doomed to failure. Thanks to the internet, people worldwide (and they vote!) are nowadays far more aware of the great Israeli hoax :Israel plays the role of victim when they are in fact the aggressors. That and the natural transmigrations of peoples. Eventually Israel will peacefully disappear. The only hope they have of a few more decades of a state with a mainly Jewish character is a two state solution. And that is fast disappearing too.

Opinionated as in opposed to experienced. Opinionated as opposed having a more objective take on things. Opinionated as opposed pragmatic. Hope it s clearer now.

I have no idea what is specifically referred to by "compromise any more". In general, and despite previous assertions, might does dictate certain conditions with regard to negotiations. This is by no means unique to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it simply is how things go. The question is not whether the Palestinians should or shouldn't compromise, but more to do with what they are willing to compromise in order to achieve their goals. Outsiders taking up a hardliner stance outflanking the official Palestinian position is odd, to say the least. If the Palestinians were to adhere to the proposed hardliner stance they wouldn't have had even the limited achievements secured so far.

Your opinions of Israel are not a secret. The usual pointless collection of negative descriptions, slogans and cliches is not constructive, does not promote any goodwill or chances of dialogue, and got little to do with the Palestinian cause. Israel's prophesied (or wished for) demise in the far future, is not very relevant for the current situation of the Palestinians. Obviously, it could all be expressed in more moderate tones, but that road is seldom taken.

The Palestinians have already compromised by allowing Israel to keep all the land it took beyond the Partition Plan lines in 1948. Now Israel wants to keep all the land it took beyond the 1967 lines as well.The Palestinians are compromising yet again by allowing land swaps for the large settlement blocs Israel has built since 1967.

You tell me what the Palestinian goals are that they wish to achieve.

Please tell me how I am outflanking the official Palestinian position, which I understand to be:

- an economically viable contiguous Palestinian state (possibly connected to Gaza by a tunnel)

- return to 67 lines incl 100% land swaps

- East Jerusalem as its capital

- return of some Palestinian refugees to their homes in Israel and/or compensation

I believe Palestinians will have to compromise in addressing Israel's security concerns by allowing an Israeli/US/UN/NATO presence in the Jordan valley and demilitarisation for several years to come.

I cannot see the Palestinians dropping these key elements, in that so much blood has been shed and that as recently as 2000 and 2008 with the Barak and Olmert plans, they have come very close to the above already. Why go backwards from there?

Time is on the side of the Palestinians. They aren't going anywhere. It is Israel that is the foreign intruder in the area that needs to make itself acceptable to its neighbors. Maybe Israel can tough it out for a few more decades managing the conflict, but the world is changing. If the move to the right in Israeli politics continues, pressure will have to come from outside to influence the hearts and minds and pockets of Israeli voters.

Personally I am in favor of passive resistance to the occupation and publishing Israel's repression to shame Israel into serious peace negotiations. But I don't have to live there and am not the Palestinian youths in the OP venting their frustration at the daily humiliations and violence they suffer at the hands of the fanatical Zionist colonists and the IDF who protect them

Edited November 25, 201510 yr by dexterm

Allow me to disagree.

Israel will never peacefully disappear.

Once the US, UK, and Europe get tired of licking their wounds and hemorrhaging money they will get out of the Middle East.

Israel will become a Fort Apache surrounded by savages.

Whatever the eventual finale is, the last act is unlikely to be peaceful.

Did you just insult both Native Americans and the Palestinians by calling them savages?

The real Battle of Fort Apache went quite differently than the movie version,

Enough of your hypocritical PC nonsense. Savages are savages the world over.

The Chiricahua Apaches qualified in the 19th century, as do Muslim fanatics in the 21st.

Incidentally, the Fort Apache metaphor was a reference to the notoriously corrupt NYPD precinct in the South Bronx that was surrounded by an urban jungle. Growing up in and around New York City I remember it very well. The comparison seemed apt.

The enemies that Israel will face in the future will indeed be savages of their own making. Because they have refused to live within their own borders and coexist peacefully with anybody they now confront an adversary that has been driven to murderous desperation.

What you see taking place now is only the beginning. The destruction of Middle Eastern countries by the US and their proxies hasn't made the neighborhood safe for Israel - quite the contrary. The Zionist neo-cons who promoted the disastrous US military interventions saw themselves as Shomers of Zion. The resulting chaos in the region has created even more and deadlier enemies and Israel has also lost support internationally. The country is now threatened with the kind of isolation and ostracism that eventually brought down Rhodesia and apartheid South Africa.

It doesn't matter how well-armed they are - Fort Apache can only hold out for so long.

I was speaking about BDS. It is not only about occupation. As anyone can discover, the leaders of BDS are against the very existence of Israel in ANY borders. Your Nazi analogy doesn't have any relevance to this discussion. I do understand that many naive supporters of the BDS movement do not fully understand the actual evil intentions of that movement but it would bode them well to learn about it.

The intent or otherwise of BDS is irrelevant. If it gives the ordinary westerner the ability to oppose Israel in even a small way, other than just complaining, many people will take that opportunity, as the actions of Israel have driven so many to wish to oppose them in some real way, given that the UN is powerless to do so because of the US veto. It's called "people power" and is a mighty weapon if mobilised, as was the case against apartheid.

If Israel doesn't want to be boycotted, the answer is simple- withdraw from occupied Palestinian land, stop blockading Gaza and allow the two state solution.

You highlight something which plagues the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and that is people support ideas, initiatives, organizations, policies and sides which they do not fully comprehend. This often leads to problematic positions - such as denying Islamic Jihadist elements within Palestinian society, or ignoring the detrimental effect exerted by the occupation on Israel's democracy. These are just a couple of examples, many more evident on each and every topic where the issue is discussed.

Saying that what BDS is about doesn't really matter, amounts to embracing an opinionated uninformed stance, based more on emotional arguments rather than objective ones. I'll refer you to the interview with De Klerk, who's position and take on these matters seems spot on.

Is the BDS movement guaranteed to dissipate if an agreement was to be reached and implemented? I think not. Theirs is not a moderate stance and the ongoing rhetoric used to vilify anything to do with Israel will not simply go away. There will always be those seeing Israel itself as illegitimate, or pushing for l"liberating" the lands lost in 1948. Since no agreement is perfectly applied, there will no doubt be "cause" to pick up this banner again.

You make it sound so simple. But it's not. The vast majority of Palestinians would vote for Hamas over Fatah now and the clearly stated agenda of Hamas is to never accept Israel with any borders, not to mention their openly stated genocidal intentions towards Jews. It's so easy for western "progressives" (many Jews too and shame on them) to favor policies that would basically be suicide for Israel. It takes two to tango. Neither side is blameless but to the obsessive Israel demonizers, it's all Israel's fault. That's total BS. It romanticizes the Palestinians as some kind of noble innocent brown people but guess what, they are not so noble. Especially when they're going at your throat with a knife just for being a Jew.

Agreed that what happens after the two state system wouldn't be simple, but it really is a simple choice,

Either create the two state system and deal with the consequences, or continue on with the status quo. The status quo, IMO, is unsustainable, given that the world is turning against Israel's occupation and illegal settlements, plus there are millions and millions of people surrounding Israel that want to do something about Israel, that won't be good for Israel.

Time and population growth is not on Israel's side.

There is still a small window of opportunity for Israel to do the right thing, but if they do not take it, the outcome is inevitable, and will not be to Israel's liking.

If it was a simple choice, it would have been made long ago. The same could have been said about the decades long Arab/Palestinian rejection of the partition plan itself. When bad blood, religion and meager resources are involved, people take a lot of time to change their ways. Even then, it is not often a very smooth transition.

It is easy enough when one is not responsible for leading a country or does not share its tenets. Taking major chances with the future of one's country, is not something all leaders are capable of. The same goes for major ideological or world view changes.

sorry threa full.

Morch wrote..

As usual, you post a collection of cliches and slogans, which come down to the same thing - an opinionated stance, rejecting anything resembling understanding or compromise. Obviously, coming to terms with complex nature of reality is beyond the abilities of some, hence the need for over-simplified catchphrases.

As usual, you make an unqualified general claim, and got no intelligent answer when called out. The attempt to reiterate your usual lines, while ignoring what you actually posted is pathetically predictable.

Of course I have an opinionated stance. That's why it's called a forum.

i don't see why Palestinians should compromise any more, having been ethnically cleansed twice already. But amazingly they are willing to...to accept lands swaps in return for further land stolen by Israel in the West Bank on which Zionist colonies have been built since 1967. It is the frustration among Palestinian youths that Israel is too greedy even to accept that and continues in its daily occupation and repression. Hence the OP backlash.

IMO the racist Zionist state of Israel is ultimately doomed to failure. Thanks to the internet, people worldwide (and they vote!) are nowadays far more aware of the great Israeli hoax :Israel plays the role of victim when they are in fact the aggressors. That and the natural transmigrations of peoples. Eventually Israel will peacefully disappear. The only hope they have of a few more decades of a state with a mainly Jewish character is a two state solution. And that is fast disappearing too.

Opinionated as in opposed to experienced. Opinionated as opposed having a more objective take on things. Opinionated as opposed pragmatic. Hope it s clearer now.

I have no idea what is specifically referred to by "compromise any more". In general, and despite previous assertions, might does dictate certain conditions with regard to negotiations. This is by no means unique to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it simply is how things go. The question is not whether the Palestinians should or shouldn't compromise, but more to do with what they are willing to compromise in order to achieve their goals. Outsiders taking up a hardliner stance outflanking the official Palestinian position is odd, to say the least. If the Palestinians were to adhere to the proposed hardliner stance they wouldn't have had even the limited achievements secured so far.

Your opinions of Israel are not a secret. The usual pointless collection of negative descriptions, slogans and cliches is not constructive, does not promote any goodwill or chances of dialogue, and got little to do with the Palestinian cause. Israel's prophesied (or wished for) demise in the far future, is not very relevant for the current situation of the Palestinians. Obviously, it could all be expressed in more moderate tones, but that road is seldom taken.

The Palestinians have already compromised by allowing Israel to keep all the land it took beyond the Partition Plan lines in 1948. Now Israel wants to keep all the land it took beyond the 1967 lines as well.The Palestinians are compromising yet again by allowing land swaps for the large settlement blocs Israel has built since 1967.

You tell me what the Palestinian goals are that they wish to achieve.

Please tell me how I am outflanking the official Palestinian position, which I understand to be:

- an economically viable contiguous Palestinian state (possibly connected to Gaza by a tunnel)

- return to 67 lines incl 100% land swaps

- East Jerusalem as its capital

- return of some Palestinian refugees to their homes in Israel and/or compensation

I believe Palestinians will have to compromise in addressing Israel's security concerns by allowing an Israeli/US/UN/NATO presence in the Jordan valley and demilitarisation for several years to come.

I cannot see the Palestinians dropping these key elements, in that so much blood has been shed and that as recently as 2000 and 2008 with the Barak and Olmert plans, they have come very close to the above already. Why go backwards from there?

Time is on the side of the Palestinians. They aren't going anywhere. It is Israel that is the foreign intruder in the area that needs to make itself acceptable to its neighbors. Maybe Israel can tough it out for a few more decades managing the conflict, but the world is changing. If the move to the right in Israeli politics continues, pressure will have to come from outside to influence the hearts and minds and pockets of Israeli voters.

Personally I am in favor of passive resistance to the occupation and publishing Israel's repression to shame Israel into serious peace negotiations. But I don't have to live there and am not the Palestinian youths in the OP venting their frustration at the daily humiliations and violence they suffer at the hands of the fanatical Zionist colonists and the IDF who protect them

The Palestinians have not "allowed" anything. Allowing implies that they had an option or power to do otherwise. Not the case. Had the Palestinians insisted on this, there would have been no negotiations whatsoever. One of them instances where might and reality have their way. Such is life. As far as I am aware, the Palestinians had less issues then you seem to present with territorial swaps. As long as these do not result in further loss of Palestinian territory and with an eye toward creating the best possible territorial continuity solutions. Acknowledging reality and working out the best available agreement is not a major compromise, but simply what must be done to achieve a goal.

You outflank the official Palestinian position by setting the goal posts to include the 1948 lines as the actual base of negotiations. The continuous attempts to delegitimize Israel, deny the connection of the Jewish People to the land and their right to it - are all contradictory to things officially accepted by the Palestinians.

The goals described in your post have nothing to do with treating 1948 as baseline, nor do they require the usual tones and descriptions employed on many of your posts. The apparent inability to discuss issues without resorting to demonization is not constructive, and does not promote any sort of dialogue.

The Palestinians cause is not best served by those taking up hardliner positions. Mainly because these often play to the hands of naysayers on the Israeli side, and serve as confirmation for the futility of negotiation and compromise. Also, despite illusions to the opposite, the Palestinians are not in a realistic position to press certain issues. Playing hardball never got the Palestinians anything.

The Olmert and Barak initiatives were close on paper only. There was no viable way of assuring enough public and parliamentary support to make them a reality. You could dispute this to your heart's desire, but that would just be another instance of discounting relevant domestic political conditions. Furthermore, I do not quite see what going "backwards" means in this context - were those initiatives widely acceptable? Was there a serious new initiative offering significantly less?

It is easy enough for outsiders to say that time is one the side of the Palestinians, and to proclaim an assured distant future victory. This is often taken by those not really preoccupied with addressing the current plight of the Palestinians, even if in means doing so in a less than ideal manner, Most cases where people put ideals over pragmatism, there tends to be a whole lot of suffering involved. Much more of an alluring position when others pay the price. I doubt that it comes as a great comfort to the Palestinians, though, or that it sounds awfully promising to those volunteered for more of the same, if not worse.

While often claiming that you prefer passive resistance, you take every opportunity to justify violence, so long as it is committed by Palestinians, There is almost never any reference to the fact that Palestinians, on the whole, do not go for that sort of thing. In that sense, what you may or may not prefer is immaterial. The concept of "shaming Israel into serious negotiations" is out of touch with reality (and you too are referred to the above linked interview with De Klerk). Demonizing a side is not really a great motivator in winning hearts and minds, employed excessively and without proportions it leads to hardening of positions instead.

Allow me to disagree.

Israel will never peacefully disappear.

Once the US, UK, and Europe get tired of licking their wounds and hemorrhaging money they will get out of the Middle East.

Israel will become a Fort Apache surrounded by savages.

Whatever the eventual finale is, the last act is unlikely to be peaceful.

Did you just insult both Native Americans and the Palestinians by calling them savages?

The real Battle of Fort Apache went quite differently than the movie version,

Enough of your hypocritical PC nonsense. Savages are savages the world over.

The Chiricahua Apaches qualified in the 19th century, as do Muslim fanatics in the 21st.

Incidentally, the Fort Apache metaphor was a reference to the notoriously corrupt NYPD precinct in the South Bronx that was surrounded by an urban jungle. Growing up in and around New York City I remember it very well. The comparison seemed apt.

The enemies that Israel will face in the future will indeed be savages of their own making. Because they have refused to live within their own borders and coexist peacefully with anybody they now confront an adversary that has been driven to murderous desperation.

What you see taking place now is only the beginning. The destruction of Middle Eastern countries by the US and their proxies hasn't made the neighborhood safe for Israel - quite the contrary. The Zionist neo-cons who promoted the disastrous US military interventions saw themselves as Shomers of Zion. The resulting chaos in the region has created even more and deadlier enemies and Israel has also lost support internationally. The country is now threatened with the kind of isolation and ostracism that eventually brought down Rhodesia and apartheid South Africa.

It doesn't matter how well-armed they are - Fort Apache can only hold out for so long.

Ah, when I point it out its hypocritical PC nonsense, but guess if I dared imply that the Palestinians (or Muslims) are savages, there would be righteous outrage expressed by the usual posters. Guess the privilege is reserved for those claiming to be on their side.

41st prescient? How is it relevant? Was it taken by local gangs? Was the police force slaughtered? If anything, it sort of proves that perseverance works out, eventually. Mind, hypocritical PC nonsense again - referring to locals in the Bronx as savages ain't much of an improvement. As an aside, there was at least one gang back then, with members having Wild West nicknames.

Going to disregard the usual doomsday conspiracy theory musings on the Middle East and its future. If you wish to rephrase it into something reasonable, I'll be happy to comment.

You make it sound so simple. But it's not. The vast majority of Palestinians would vote for Hamas over Fatah now and the clearly stated agenda of Hamas is to never accept Israel with any borders, not to mention their openly stated genocidal intentions towards Jews. It's so easy for western "progressives" (many Jews too and shame on them) to favor policies that would basically be suicide for Israel. It takes two to tango. Neither side is blameless but to the obsessive Israel demonizers, it's all Israel's fault. That's total BS. It romanticizes the Palestinians as some kind of noble innocent brown people but guess what, they are not so noble. Especially when they're going at your throat with a knife just for being a Jew.

Agreed that what happens after the two state system wouldn't be simple, but it really is a simple choice,

Either create the two state system and deal with the consequences, or continue on with the status quo. The status quo, IMO, is unsustainable, given that the world is turning against Israel's occupation and illegal settlements, plus there are millions and millions of people surrounding Israel that want to do something about Israel, that won't be good for Israel.

Time and population growth is not on Israel's side.

There is still a small window of opportunity for Israel to do the right thing, but if they do not take it, the outcome is inevitable, and will not be to Israel's liking.

Israel has made peace with Egypt and Jordan, I also suspect they have done likewise with Saudi Arabia and the UAE, though for reasons of realpolitik this is not made official. So Israel's neighbors do not pose a threat in the way they did, with the exception of Iran and her proxies. Secondly, you may have missed the news but the birthrate among Israeli Jews now matches that of their Arab neighbors, so demographics is not going to threaten Israel as a Jewish state.

I will predict this current intifada will be the last however seeing as severed of regional support the Palestinians will eventually be forced to elect leaders who actually believe in a two state solution - a peace settlement (if not actual peace) will quickly follow.

Here, just to kill a few dreams of Israel being bred out of existence, cue intense focus on the 'right of return' as UNRWA claim for a child with a grand parent who lived in Palestine for as little as two years.

http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/4058/israel-demographic-miracle

Edited November 25, 201510 yr by Steely Dan

I agree the leftist wishful thinking "Israel is doomed" dream pointing to low Jewish birth rates is not actually a serious problem for Israel. Also expect more Jews coming from Belgium and France any day now.

Edited November 25, 201510 yr by Jingthing

Sorry thread full

Morch wrote...

The Palestinians have not "allowed" anything. Allowing implies that they had an option or power to do otherwise. Not the case. Had the Palestinians insisted on this, there would have been no negotiations whatsoever. One of them instances where might and reality have their way. Such is life. As far as I am aware, the Palestinians had less issues then you seem to present with territorial swaps. As long as these do not result in further loss of Palestinian territory and with an eye toward creating the best possible territorial continuity solutions. Acknowledging reality and working out the best available agreement is not a major compromise, but simply what must be done to achieve a goal.

You outflank the official Palestinian position by setting the goal posts to include the 1948 lines as the actual base of negotiations. The continuous attempts to delegitimize Israel, deny the connection of the Jewish People to the land and their right to it - are all contradictory to things officially accepted by the Palestinians.

The goals described in your post have nothing to do with treating 1948 as baseline, nor do they require the usual tones and descriptions employed on many of your posts. The apparent inability to discuss issues without resorting to demonization is not constructive, and does not promote any sort of dialogue.

The Palestinians cause is not best served by those taking up hardliner positions. Mainly because these often play to the hands of naysayers on the Israeli side, and serve as confirmation for the futility of negotiation and compromise. Also, despite illusions to the opposite, the Palestinians are not in a realistic position to press certain issues. Playing hardball never got the Palestinians anything.

The Olmert and Barak initiatives were close on paper only. There was no viable way of assuring enough public and parliamentary support to make them a reality. You could dispute this to your heart's desire, but that would just be another instance of discounting relevant domestic political conditions. Furthermore, I do not quite see what going "backwards" means in this context - were those initiatives widely acceptable? Was there a serious new initiative offering significantly less?

It is easy enough for outsiders to say that time is one the side of the Palestinians, and to proclaim an assured distant future victory. This is often taken by those not really preoccupied with addressing the current plight of the Palestinians, even if in means doing so in a less than ideal manner, Most cases where people put ideals over pragmatism, there tends to be a whole lot of suffering involved. Much more of an alluring position when others pay the price. I doubt that it comes as a great comfort to the Palestinians, though, or that it sounds awfully promising to those volunteered for more of the same, if not worse.

While often claiming that you prefer passive resistance, you take every opportunity to justify violence, so long as it is committed by Palestinians, There is almost never any reference to the fact that Palestinians, on the whole, do not go for that sort of thing. In that sense, what you may or may not prefer is immaterial. The concept of "shaming Israel into serious negotiations" is out of touch with reality (and you too are referred to the above linked interview with De Klerk). Demonizing a side is not really a great motivator in winning hearts and minds, employed excessively and without proportions it leads to hardening of positions instead.

Nonsense. Quote a link where I have ever said that the 1948 lines should be the basis of negotiations. In this present thread above I clearly wrote

- return to 67 lines incl 100% land swaps

There it is in black and white and that has always been my stance.

Are you trying to say that the official Palestinian position is to support Zionism..that Jews have the right of return to a land many of them have never set eys on before, while Palestinians who still have the keys to their homes languish in refugee camps??? They recognize the state of Israel, but not the Jewish State of Israel which would immediately relegate 20% of Israel's non Jewish population as 2nd class citizens.

You are deliberately muddying the waters.You are quick to criticize others about misrepresenting Palestinian goals, but fail to outline what they actually are yourself.

You prattle on about compromises both sides must make, but don't elucidate what they are.

Edited November 25, 201510 yr by dexterm

You make it sound so simple. But it's not. The vast majority of Palestinians would vote for Hamas over Fatah now and the clearly stated agenda of Hamas is to never accept Israel with any borders, not to mention their openly stated genocidal intentions towards Jews. It's so easy for western "progressives" (many Jews too and shame on them) to favor policies that would basically be suicide for Israel. It takes two to tango. Neither side is blameless but to the obsessive Israel demonizers, it's all Israel's fault. That's total BS. It romanticizes the Palestinians as some kind of noble innocent brown people but guess what, they are not so noble. Especially when they're going at your throat with a knife just for being a Jew.

Agreed that what happens after the two state system wouldn't be simple, but it really is a simple choice,

Either create the two state system and deal with the consequences, or continue on with the status quo. The status quo, IMO, is unsustainable, given that the world is turning against Israel's occupation and illegal settlements, plus there are millions and millions of people surrounding Israel that want to do something about Israel, that won't be good for Israel.

Time and population growth is not on Israel's side.

There is still a small window of opportunity for Israel to do the right thing, but if they do not take it, the outcome is inevitable, and will not be to Israel's liking.

Israel has made peace with Egypt and Jordan, I also suspect they have done likewise with Saudi Arabia and the UAE, though for reasons of realpolitik this is not made official. So Israel's neighbors do not pose a threat in the way they did, with the exception of Iran and her proxies. Secondly, you may have missed the news but the birthrate among Israeli Jews now matches that of their Arab neighbors, so demographics is not going to threaten Israel as a Jewish state.

I will predict this current intifada will be the last however seeing as severed of regional support the Palestinians will eventually be forced to elect leaders who actually believe in a two state solution - a peace settlement (if not actual peace) will quickly follow.

Here, just to kill a few dreams of Israel being bred out of existence, cue intense focus on the 'right of return' as UNRWA claim for a child with a grand parent who lived in Palestine for as little as two years.

http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/4058/israel-demographic-miracle

I prefer the credibility of these stats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel

You make it sound so simple. But it's not. The vast majority of Palestinians would vote for Hamas over Fatah now and the clearly stated agenda of Hamas is to never accept Israel with any borders, not to mention their openly stated genocidal intentions towards Jews. It's so easy for western "progressives" (many Jews too and shame on them) to favor policies that would basically be suicide for Israel. It takes two to tango. Neither side is blameless but to the obsessive Israel demonizers, it's all Israel's fault. That's total BS. It romanticizes the Palestinians as some kind of noble innocent brown people but guess what, they are not so noble. Especially when they're going at your throat with a knife just for being a Jew.

Agreed that what happens after the two state system wouldn't be simple, but it really is a simple choice,

Either create the two state system and deal with the consequences, or continue on with the status quo. The status quo, IMO, is unsustainable, given that the world is turning against Israel's occupation and illegal settlements, plus there are millions and millions of people surrounding Israel that want to do something about Israel, that won't be good for Israel.

Time and population growth is not on Israel's side.

There is still a small window of opportunity for Israel to do the right thing, but if they do not take it, the outcome is inevitable, and will not be to Israel's liking.

Israel has made peace with Egypt and Jordan, I also suspect they have done likewise with Saudi Arabia and the UAE, though for reasons of realpolitik this is not made official. So Israel's neighbors do not pose a threat in the way they did, with the exception of Iran and her proxies. Secondly, you may have missed the news but the birthrate among Israeli Jews now matches that of their Arab neighbors, so demographics is not going to threaten Israel as a Jewish state.

I will predict this current intifada will be the last however seeing as severed of regional support the Palestinians will eventually be forced to elect leaders who actually believe in a two state solution - a peace settlement (if not actual peace) will quickly follow.

Here, just to kill a few dreams of Israel being bred out of existence, cue intense focus on the 'right of return' as UNRWA claim for a child with a grand parent who lived in Palestine for as little as two years.

http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/4058/israel-demographic-miracle

I prefer the credibility of these stats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel

Cling to whatever you like, the Israeli Jewish birthrate is the highest in the developed world, the Muslim birthrate is dropping fast, demographics will not threaten Israel.

Sorry thread full

Morch wrote...

The Palestinians have not "allowed" anything. Allowing implies that they had an option or power to do otherwise. Not the case. Had the Palestinians insisted on this, there would have been no negotiations whatsoever. One of them instances where might and reality have their way. Such is life. As far as I am aware, the Palestinians had less issues then you seem to present with territorial swaps. As long as these do not result in further loss of Palestinian territory and with an eye toward creating the best possible territorial continuity solutions. Acknowledging reality and working out the best available agreement is not a major compromise, but simply what must be done to achieve a goal.

You outflank the official Palestinian position by setting the goal posts to include the 1948 lines as the actual base of negotiations. The continuous attempts to delegitimize Israel, deny the connection of the Jewish People to the land and their right to it - are all contradictory to things officially accepted by the Palestinians.

The goals described in your post have nothing to do with treating 1948 as baseline, nor do they require the usual tones and descriptions employed on many of your posts. The apparent inability to discuss issues without resorting to demonization is not constructive, and does not promote any sort of dialogue.

The Palestinians cause is not best served by those taking up hardliner positions. Mainly because these often play to the hands of naysayers on the Israeli side, and serve as confirmation for the futility of negotiation and compromise. Also, despite illusions to the opposite, the Palestinians are not in a realistic position to press certain issues. Playing hardball never got the Palestinians anything.

The Olmert and Barak initiatives were close on paper only. There was no viable way of assuring enough public and parliamentary support to make them a reality. You could dispute this to your heart's desire, but that would just be another instance of discounting relevant domestic political conditions. Furthermore, I do not quite see what going "backwards" means in this context - were those initiatives widely acceptable? Was there a serious new initiative offering significantly less?

It is easy enough for outsiders to say that time is one the side of the Palestinians, and to proclaim an assured distant future victory. This is often taken by those not really preoccupied with addressing the current plight of the Palestinians, even if in means doing so in a less than ideal manner, Most cases where people put ideals over pragmatism, there tends to be a whole lot of suffering involved. Much more of an alluring position when others pay the price. I doubt that it comes as a great comfort to the Palestinians, though, or that it sounds awfully promising to those volunteered for more of the same, if not worse.

While often claiming that you prefer passive resistance, you take every opportunity to justify violence, so long as it is committed by Palestinians, There is almost never any reference to the fact that Palestinians, on the whole, do not go for that sort of thing. In that sense, what you may or may not prefer is immaterial. The concept of "shaming Israel into serious negotiations" is out of touch with reality (and you too are referred to the above linked interview with De Klerk). Demonizing a side is not really a great motivator in winning hearts and minds, employed excessively and without proportions it leads to hardening of positions instead.

Nonsense. Quote a link where I have ever said that the 1948 lines should be the basis of negotiations. In this present thread above I clearly wrote

- return to 67 lines incl 100% land swaps

There it is in black and white and that has always been my stance.

Are you trying to say that the official Palestinian position is to support Zionism..that Jews have the right of return to a land many of them have never set eys on before, while Palestinians who still have the keys to their homes languish in refugee camps??? They recognize the state of Israel, but not the Jewish State of Israel which would immediately relegate 20% of Israel's non Jewish population as 2nd class citizens.

You are deliberately muddying the waters.You are quick to criticize others about misrepresenting Palestinian goals, but fail to outline what they actually are yourself.

You prattle on about compromises both sides must make, but don't elucidate what they are.

I was referring to your repeated opinion that the Palestinians not insisting on the 1948 lines is a major concession - http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/872869-israeli-and-palestinian-casualties-follow-further-stabbings-in-west-bank/?p=10117514. If one would accept that, it implies that the Palestinians already "gave away" something within the framework of current negotiations. Not quite an accurate description, and not representative of the Palestinian position. Note also, that the 1967 lines were agreed as a base, not as a written in stone condition.

The Palestinians are not expected to become Zionists, of course. Nevertheless, they have agreed to nullify certain articles of the Palestinian National Covenant. Some of these articles include the denial of Israel's legitimacy, denial of the historical-religious connection of the Jews to Palestine, defining Zionism as colonialism, fascism, imperialism and racism. There is more in this vein, but I'm sure that the point is clear. The usual tone and content of your posts includes all of the above, and is way beyond the usual fare contained in official Palestinian statements.

Pretending that this is the first time we have crossed words over these issues is ridiculous. I have often posted regarding what I consider are both sides past and current positions, or commented on what might be workable solutions. Claiming I did not address these things is disingenuous. But then again, we had the very same exchange not too long ago.....may want to find a new deflection tactic: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/860941-israeli-right-wingers-call-for-government-crackdown-on-palestinian-violence/?p=9945268

And this goes back a bit:

Thank you, Morch, for your well considered practical implementation of a solution to the conflict.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/785296-israel-dismisses-palestinian-peace-deal-plan-as-gimmick/?p=8828938

Oh, the Palestinian National Covenant thing is not a new conversation as well - http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/860733-israel-launches-airstrikes-on-targets-in-gaza/?p=9938708

You make it sound so simple. But it's not. The vast majority of Palestinians would vote for Hamas over Fatah now and the clearly stated agenda of Hamas is to never accept Israel with any borders, not to mention their openly stated genocidal intentions towards Jews. It's so easy for western "progressives" (many Jews too and shame on them) to favor policies that would basically be suicide for Israel. It takes two to tango. Neither side is blameless but to the obsessive Israel demonizers, it's all Israel's fault. That's total BS. It romanticizes the Palestinians as some kind of noble innocent brown people but guess what, they are not so noble. Especially when they're going at your throat with a knife just for being a Jew.

But only one side IS to blame for settlements and thats what has caused worldwide condemnation against Israel and has promoted most countries in the world to already acknowledge Palestine.

The building of settlements alone is now the reason the world is getting behind palestine and Israel only has itself to blame for that.

Israel has made peace with Egypt and Jordan, I also suspect they have done likewise with Saudi Arabia and the UAE, though for reasons of realpolitik this is not made official. So Israel's neighbors do not pose a threat in the way they did, with the exception of Iran and her proxies. Secondly, you may have missed the news but the birthrate among Israeli Jews now matches that of their Arab neighbors, so demographics is not going to threaten Israel as a Jewish state.

I will predict this current intifada will be the last however seeing as severed of regional support the Palestinians will eventually be forced to elect leaders who actually believe in a two state solution - a peace settlement (if not actual peace) will quickly follow.

Here, just to kill a few dreams of Israel being bred out of existence, cue intense focus on the 'right of return' as UNRWA claim for a child with a grand parent who lived in Palestine for as little as two years.

http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/4058/israel-demographic-miracle

I agree the leftist wishful thinking "Israel is doomed" dream pointing to low Jewish birth rates is not actually a serious problem for Israel. Also expect more Jews coming from Belgium and France any day now.

I prefer the credibility of these stats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel

The rise is Jewish birthrates is mainly tied with religious Jews (more strongly with orthodox and ultra-orthodox Jews). While this, nominally, supports the notion that it would be possible to maintain a Jewish majority, things are more complicated. Orthodox and ultra-orthodox Jews are far from being fully integrated within the contexts of Israel's economy, education, and military service. They constitute a relatively large percentage of those living in poverty and relying on social security. As their numbers will rise, so will relates issues connected with the topics mentioned above. Furthermore, while this sort of addresses Israel maintaining a Jewish majority, it does raise serious question marks on maintaining its democratic and pluralistic character.

As for preferring the credibility of statistics on Wikipedia:

In June 2013, the Central Bureau of Statistics released a demographic report, projecting that Israel's population would grow to 11.4 million by 2035, with the Jewish population numbering 8.3 million, or 73% of the population, and the Arab population at 2.6 million, or 23%. This includes some 2.3 million Muslims (20% of the population), 185,000 Druze, and 152,000 Christians. The report predicts that the Israeli population growth rate will decline to 1.4% annually, with growth in the Muslim population remaining higher than the Jewish population until 2035, at which point the Jewish population will begin growing the fastest.^[70]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel#Future_projections

A musical response to the persistent attacks from the Palestinian terrorists.

"If they bless death, there's no reason to give them life."

"This isn't a matter of left vs. right. This is a matter of the innocent vs. treachery."

Indeed.

How would your country respond to a wave of terrorism? With hugs and teddy bears? I didn't think so.

Search: youtube Dr. Chan Breaking News

Direct view too graphic for this site.

Edited November 25, 201510 yr by Jingthing

A musical response to the persistent attacks from the Palestinian terrorists.

"If they bless death, there's no reason to give them life."

"This isn't a matter of left vs. right. This is a matter of the innocent vs. treachery."

Indeed.

How would your country respond to a wave of terrorism? With hugs and teddy bears? I didn't think so.

Search: youtube Dr. Chan Breaking News

Direct view too graphic for this site.

My country would not react with hugs and teddy bears.

But, my country wouldn't have incited the violence in the first place with fascist, imperialistic colonial crimes against humanity.

How would YOUR country react if it's people were having their villages destroyed so colonials could build their "our religion only" communities?

A musical response to the persistent attacks from the Palestinian terrorists.

"If they bless death, there's no reason to give them life."

"This isn't a matter of left vs. right. This is a matter of the innocent vs. treachery."

Indeed.

How would your country respond to a wave of terrorism? With hugs and teddy bears? I didn't think so.

Search: youtube Dr. Chan Breaking News

Direct view too graphic for this site.

My country would not react with hugs and teddy bears.

But, my country wouldn't have incited the violence in the first place with fascist, imperialistic colonial crimes against humanity.

How would YOUR country react if it's people were having their villages destroyed so colonials could build their "our religion only" communities?

You come from a country that had no indigenous population?

A musical response to the persistent attacks from the Palestinian terrorists.

"If they bless death, there's no reason to give them life."

"This isn't a matter of left vs. right. This is a matter of the innocent vs. treachery."

Indeed.

How would your country respond to a wave of terrorism? With hugs and teddy bears? I didn't think so.

Search: youtube Dr. Chan Breaking News

Direct view too graphic for this site.

I would be asking my govt why are they continuing to build settlements and what are our borders. I would tell them our own actions are causing the trouble.

Edited November 26, 201510 yr by Linky

A musical response to the persistent attacks from the Palestinian terrorists.

"If they bless death, there's no reason to give them life."

"This isn't a matter of left vs. right. This is a matter of the innocent vs. treachery."

Indeed.

How would your country respond to a wave of terrorism? With hugs and teddy bears? I didn't think so.

Search: youtube Dr. Chan Breaking News

Direct view too graphic for this site.

My country would not react with hugs and teddy bears.

But, my country wouldn't have incited the violence in the first place with fascist, imperialistic colonial crimes against humanity.

How would YOUR country react if it's people were having their villages destroyed so colonials could build their "our religion only" communities?

You come from a country that had no indigenous population?

What's the point you're trying to make? That America is founded upon colonies? Australia, New Zealand?

It's really not relevant in the 21st century. But speaking of indigenous peoples......back to the OP and how the current day colonialist criminals are displacing the indigenous people, and how they are fed up to the back teeth......

A reply to a post has been removed as the act of replying to the post altered the quoted text in such a manner as to change the statement made by one member to imply another member made the statement.