Kerry's 'one state' comments cause consternation in Israel

[webfact]

Kerry's 'one state' comments cause consternation in Israel
By DAN PERRY and JOSEF FEDERMAN

JERUSALEM (AP) — U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry set off an uproar in Israel on Sunday after warning that the country, through its continued West Bank occupation, will become a "binational state."

Kerry's words describe a scenario that would mark a failure of U.S. policy and end to Israel's existence as a country that is both Jewish and democratic. The U.S., the international community and many Israelis have endorsed the "two-state solution" — establishing a Palestinian state and ending Israel's control over millions of Palestinians in territories occupied in the 1967 war.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared Sunday that "Israel will not be a binational state" and blamed the Palestinians for the failure of peace efforts. But despite Netanyahu's pledges, Jewish settlement of the West Bank continues apace, while confusion over his true intentions grows by the day.

Meanwhile, Israel seems unable to stem a wave of stabbings and other attacks by Palestinian individuals, now in its third month, that has killed 19 Israelis and left over 100 Palestinians, most said by Israel to be attackers, dead.

This situation has sharpened the country's half-century-old debate over the Palestinians. Opposition politicians, intellectuals and retired military commanders are issuing increasingly strident warnings that never-ending violence awaits if Israel continues to occupy millions of angry Palestinians who cannot vote in its national elections.

"If Israel were the Titanic and the binational apartheid state its iceberg ... then the collision with the iceberg has already occurred," wrote columnist Rogel Alpher in the Haaretz daily. "Without a diplomatic solution, we will continue to slowly sink into an existence of knifings, hatred and fear."

Here's a look at the potential "one-state" outcome:

THE ARGUMENT FOR PULLING OUT OF THE WEST BANK

Ever since Israel seized the West Bank and Gaza from Jordan and Egypt in 1967, the question of the territories' fate has hung in the air.

Israel's more dovish left wing has favored a pullout from most of the areas, hoping this will bring Israel recognition and peace in the region. But over two decades of failed peace talks have convinced many a deal is not possible.

The left still favors a pullout, but the rationale has shifted to something more like nationalism: without a pullout, Israel would no longer be a Jewish-majority democracy because half of its population in effect will be Palestinians, most of them without true democratic rights.

That's because while Israel proper — the area defined by 1949 cease-fire lines that ended the war surrounding Israel's establishment — has roughly 6.3 million Jews and 1.7 million Palestinian citizens of Israel. Adding the West Bank and Gaza, demographers believe, would make the Arab and Jewish populations essentially equal.

A pullout from the West Bank is complicated by the presence of Jewish settlers, numbering 400,000 and growing. Eventually the situation may become irreversible, with the Palestinians abandoning efforts to set up their own state and instead demanding annexation and voting rights as citizens of a single "binational" state. Israelis who fear this scenario and see a future of internecine conflict, global economic boycotts and increasing isolation want a pullout now, from at least most of the West Bank, even without an agreement with the Palestinians.

"If the Israelis don't hurry up to implement the two-state solution on the ground, they will lose," said Ahmed Qurei, a longtime Palestinian negotiator.

THE ARGUMENT FOR NOT PULLING OUT OF THE WEST BANK

For some Jewish Israelis, the West Bank is literally the Promised Land — full of biblical places like Hebron, Jericho, Bethlehem and Shilo that must be kept as a birthright, whatever the consequences.

But this is a minority opinion, even among proponents of the occupation. The more common argument is rooted in security.

Without the West Bank, Israel would be about 10 miles (about 15 kilometers) wide at its narrowest point, with the West Bank looming over population centers and surrounding Jerusalem on three sides. Meanwhile, Islamic radicals are on the march across the region. Such Israelis imagine a future in which some version of the Islamic State group seizes control of the West Bank and launches daily attacks at Israel. They conclude that prudence requires holding onto the West Bank; the Palestinians must be satisfied with their autonomy zones set up under interim agreements in the 1990s.

THE IMPACT OF GAZA

Israel pulled troops and settlers out of the Gaza Strip in 2005 as part of a simple calculation: With the small but crowded territory neatly removed from the demographic equation, Jews still have a majority of some 60 percent. But the Islamic militants of Hamas seized control of Gaza, periodically firing rockets at Israel and leading the sides to three mini-wars to date. Many Israelis fear the West Bank will face a similar fate if Israeli withdraws. Meanwhile, the Palestinians and much of the world consider Gaza to still be occupied, since Israel blockades it and controls the airspace and sea access in an effort to minimize Hamas' ability to arm itself.

KEEP THE ARMY, REMOVE THE SETTLERS?

A paper published two weeks ago by a major Israeli think tank proposed a new unilateral solution in which settlers would be pulled out of most of the West Bank to create a situation more amenable to partition. The army would maintain its current positions until a better alternative emerged. The authors — economist Avner Halevi and Gilead Sher, a former chief negotiator with the Palestinians — said this would require removing about 100,000 settlers, while others living close to Israel's de facto border would remain pending a future negotiation. "The purpose of such a withdrawal would be to implement a temporary border that would create a reality of two nation-states," Sher and Halevi wrote.
___

A link to the think tank proposal: http://www.inss.org.il/index.aspx?id=4538&articleid=10981


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-12-07

[dexterm]

The article is exactly what I have been saying for the last 2 years on this forum.

Israel should either annex the whole of the West Bank, end the apartheid situation, and grant equal citizenship to Palestinians, or end the occupation and move towards creating a 2 state solution with an economically viable contiguous Palestinian state with Gaza eventually connected via a rail tunnel. While at the same time addressing Israel's security concerns for several years to come, with some sort of demilitarization and a US/Israeli/UN/EU/NATO presence in the Jordan Valley?

As Kerry has said previously: the status quo is unsustainable. Israel cannot remain a Jewish state and a democracy if it annexes the West Bank. And it cannot have a Jewish state unless Jews are a majority, and the only way it could do that is to ethnically cleanse Palestinians, which it has done twice already. The whole world is watching this time via international and social media. So it won't get away with that ploy again.

What's left? Bite the bullet and get down to some serious peace talks. A moratorium on colony building and release of political prisoners would create some goodwill, and at the same time ease tensions and the current round of violence, giving Palestinians some hope for a better future.

Yes, I know all easier said than done. Maybe we will have to wait for fresh Israeli elections and/or Abbas to be replaced.

Edited December 7, 2015 by dexterm

[Ulysses G.]

But the Islamic militants of Hamas seized control of Gaza, periodically firing rockets at Israel and leading the sides to three mini-wars to date. Many Israelis fear the West Bank will face a similar fate if Israeli withdraws​

Not entirely correct. The Islamic terrorists of Hamas were ELECTED by the Palestinians. If they can not make peace with Israel, they should never have a country of their own.

Edited December 7, 2015 by seedy
font

[Seastallion]

But the Islamic militants of Hamas seized control of Gaza, periodically firing rockets at Israel and leading the sides to three mini-wars to date. Many Israelis fear the West Bank will face a similar fate if Israeli withdraws​

Not entirely correct. The Islamic terrorists of Hamas were ELECTED by the Palestinians. If they can not make peace with Israel, they should never have a country of their own.

That's a two-way street.

Following your rationale, what's to happen to Israel since ISRAEL will not make peace?

[Seastallion]

The article is exactly what I have been saying for the last 2 years on this forum.

Israel should either annex the whole of the West Bank, end the apartheid situation, and grant equal citizenship to Palestinians, or end the occupation and move towards creating a 2 state solution with an economically viable contiguous Palestinian state with Gaza eventually connected via a rail tunnel. While at the same time addressing Israel's security concerns for several years to come, with some sort of demilitarization and a US/Israeli/UN/EU/NATO presence in the Jordan Valley?

As Kerry has said previously: the status quo is unsustainable. Israel cannot remain a Jewish state and a democracy if it annexes the West Bank. And it cannot have a Jewish state unless Jews are a majority, and the only way it could do that is to ethnically cleanse Palestinians, which it has done twice already. The whole world is watching this time via international and social media. So it won't get away with that ploy again.

What's left? Bite the bullet and get down to some serious peace talks. A moratorium on colony building and release of political prisoners would create some goodwill, and at the same time ease tensions and the current round of violence, giving Palestinians some hope for a better future.

Yes, I know all easier said than done. Maybe we will have to wait for fresh Israeli elections and/or Abbas to be replaced.

They are burying their heads in the sand, refusing to face reality, hoping that soon the weight of all the illegal settlements will make it impossible to hand the West Bank back to the rightful owners and ignoring the inevitable.

Perhaps they even think that the world will support them when next they (ahem) "defend" themselves.

[dexterm]

But the Islamic militants of Hamas seized control of Gaza, periodically firing rockets at Israel and leading the sides to three mini-wars to dyate. Many Israelis fear the West Bank will face a similar fate if Israeli withdraws​

Not entirely correct. The Islamic terrorists of Hamas were ELECTED by the Palestinians. If they can not make peace with Israel, they should never have a country of their own.

Israelis elected Netanyahu, and there's been nothing but trouble since they did so..wars, intifadas..maybe time Israelis tried a different strategy to coexist with their geographic neighbors for eternity.

[Ulysses G.]

But the Islamic militants of Hamas seized control of Gaza, periodically firing rockets at Israel and leading the sides to three mini-wars to date. Many Israelis fear the West Bank will face a similar fate if Israeli withdraws​

Not entirely correct. The Islamic terrorists of Hamas were ELECTED by the Palestinians. If they can not make peace with Israel, they should never have a country of their own.

That's a two-way street.

Israel holds all the cards. The Palestinians are the ones living in a purgatory of their own making with no economy and a bumbling military.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[dexterm]

But the Islamic militants of Hamas seized control of Gaza, periodically firing rockets at Israel and leading the sides to three mini-wars to date. Many Israelis fear the West Bank will face a similar fate if Israeli withdraws​

Not entirely correct. The Islamic terrorists of Hamas were ELECTED by the Palestinians. If they can not make peace with Israel, they should never have a country of their own.

That's a two-way street.

Israel holds all the cards. The Palestinians are the ones living in a purgatory of their own making with no economy and a bumbling military.

Well, since Israel holds all the cards, maybe they should do something about improving their situation vis a vis their neighbors, rather than forever looking over their shoulders. Embrace the future rather than the past.

[Seastallion]

But the Islamic militants of Hamas seized control of Gaza, periodically firing rockets at Israel and leading the sides to three mini-wars to date. Many Israelis fear the West Bank will face a similar fate if Israeli withdraws​

Not entirely correct. The Islamic terrorists of Hamas were ELECTED by the Palestinians. If they can not make peace with Israel, they should never have a country of their own.

That's a two-way street.

Israel holds all the cards. The Palestinians are the ones living in a purgatory of their own making with no economy and a bumbling military.

Pathetic spin.

You made a comment that if the Palestrinians can't make peace then they shouldn't have a country.

Israel can't make peace.

Why does having military might and Uncle Sam mean no peace effort required?

[Michael8511]

But the Islamic militants of Hamas seized control of Gaza, periodically firing rockets at Israel and leading the sides to three mini-wars to date. Many Israelis fear the West Bank will face a similar fate if Israeli withdraws​

Not entirely correct. The Islamic terrorists of Hamas were ELECTED by the Palestinians. If they can not make peace with Israel, they should never have a country of their own.

The duty of making peace does not only lay on the Palestinians even Israel have to make an effort to make peace. A lot of younger Israelis want piece but the right wing are not able to accept the Palestinians.

[Seastallion]

But the Islamic militants of Hamas seized control of Gaza, periodically firing rockets at Israel and leading the sides to three mini-wars to date. Many Israelis fear the West Bank will face a similar fate if Israeli withdraws​

Not entirely correct. The Islamic terrorists of Hamas were ELECTED by the Palestinians. If they can not make peace with Israel, they should never have a country of their own.

That's a two-way street.

Israel holds all the cards. The Palestinians are the ones living in a purgatory of their own making with no economy and a bumbling military.

Well, since Israel holds all the cards, maybe they should do something about improving their situation vis a vis their neighbors, rather than forever looking over their shoulders. Embrace the future rather than the past.

Just for argument's sake, lets say the entire onus for peace lies with the Palestinians. Lets say they don't come to the table.

What is Israel going to do? Absorb the Muslims into a single state? Keep on looking over their shoulders while they continue to oppress the Palestinians? Or ethnically cleanse them?

Or is there another unilateral option for Israel?

Do you get it? Israel has two options: Make peace or continue committing crimes for which they will pay, one way or another.

[JingerBen]

Well, since Israel holds all the cards, maybe they should do something about improving their situation vis a vis their neighbors, rather than forever looking over their shoulders. Embrace the future rather than the past.

Just for argument's sake, lets say the entire onus for peace lies with the Palestinians. Lets say they don't come to the table.

What is Israel going to do? Absorb the Muslims into a single state? Keep on looking over their shoulders while they continue to oppress the Palestinians? Or ethnically cleanse them?

Or is there another unilateral option for Israel?

Do you get it? Israel has two options: Make peace or continue committing crimes for which they will pay, one way or another.

The Zionists, for their part, do not even need a strategy for rule.

They push the US into wars for Israel, and once having destroyed "the enemy country" they leave a vacuum to be filled by chaos.

The American public provides the money and blood for these misadventures and gains nothing but domestic deterioration and greater international strife.

[does]

Start with the most delicate and difficult issue: making Jerusalem an international city. Then an overall settlement will become much easier.

[Jingthing]

Israel faces a bunch of cruddy choices. All of them have serious downsides and major risks, potentially existential ones. So it's not exactly surprising that for the time being the status quo is winning the day. The OP listing issues with different paths was informative. If there was an obvious great choice with a high chance of bringing peace and low chance of risking Israel's existence, it would have been taken already.

In the long run, yes, I can see that the Judea/Samaria settlers need to leave ... but in Middle East terms, what is long run, 5 years, 100, or 1000?

Edited December 7, 2015 by Jingthing

[Seastallion]

Well, since Israel holds all the cards, maybe they should do something about improving their situation vis a vis their neighbors, rather than forever looking over their shoulders. Embrace the future rather than the past.

Just for argument's sake, lets say the entire onus for peace lies with the Palestinians. Lets say they don't come to the table.

What is Israel going to do? Absorb the Muslims into a single state? Keep on looking over their shoulders while they continue to oppress the Palestinians? Or ethnically cleanse them?

Or is there another unilateral option for Israel?

Do you get it? Israel has two options: Make peace or continue committing crimes for which they will pay, one way or another.

The Zionists, for their part, do not even need a strategy for rule.

They push the US into wars for Israel, and once having destroyed "the enemy country" they leave a vacuum to be filled by chaos.

The American public provides the money and blood for these misadventures and gains nothing but domestic deterioration and greater international strife.

Yep, and this is one of the reasons Israel will pay dearly if they continue committing crimes; Americans will wake up soon.

Of course, as could be happening now, if we get a major "us against the Muslims" conflict, it will give Israel breathing space, but whatever happens, they can not continue indefinitely. Despite Trump supporters and those that voted for Idiot Bush, Americans aren't all stupid.

[Seastallion]

Israel faces a bunch of cruddy choices. All of them have serious downsides and major risks, potentially existential ones. So it's not exactly surprising that for the time being the status quo is winning the day. The OP listing issues with different paths was informative. If there was an obvious great choice with a high chance of bringing peace and low chance of risking Israel's existence, it would have been taken already.

A bunch of cruddy choices that they created for themselves.

But even if they didn't create the cruddy choices, why should the Palestinians have to suffer because poor little Israel has cruddy choices?

[seedy]

One Troll / Flaming post - without a quote from a credible link removed.

Feel free to repost with the relevant info.

[Munsterman]

Without major changes to thinking by Netanyahu and his cronies, there may not be a state of Israel to argue about in another few years. No tears from me. The Israelis had their chance and blew it. Too busy finding excuses for their land grab to worry about their grandchildren.

[Jingthing]

Without major changes to thinking by Netanyahu and his cronies, there may not be a state of Israel to argue about in another few years. No tears from me. The Israelis had their chance and blew it. Too busy finding excuses for their land grab to worry about their grandchildren.

Yes, well understood, the Israel demonization agenda is all about either openly or indirectly supporting the end of the state of Israel. I wouldn't celebrate the end of Israel prematurely.

[DaddyWarbucks]

Well, since Israel holds all the cards, maybe they should do something about improving their situation vis a vis their neighbors, rather than forever looking over their shoulders. Embrace the future rather than the past.

Just for argument's sake, lets say the entire onus for peace lies with the Palestinians. Lets say they don't come to the table.

What is Israel going to do? Absorb the Muslims into a single state? Keep on looking over their shoulders while they continue to oppress the Palestinians? Or ethnically cleanse them?

Or is there another unilateral option for Israel?

Do you get it? Israel has two options: Make peace or continue committing crimes for which they will pay, one way or another.

The Zionists, for their part, do not even need a strategy for rule.

They push the US into wars for Israel, and once having destroyed "the enemy country" they leave a vacuum to be filled by chaos.

The American public provides the money and blood for these misadventures and gains nothing but domestic deterioration and greater international strife.

Yep, and this is one of the reasons Israel will pay dearly if they continue committing crimes; Americans will wake up soon.

Of course, as could be happening now, if we get a major "us against the Muslims" conflict, it will give Israel breathing space, but whatever happens, they can not continue indefinitely. Despite Trump supporters and those that voted for Idiot Bush, Americans aren't all stupid.

...maybe not, but a large percentage of them seem to come under Abraham Lincoln's "...and you can fool all of the people some of the time" rubric.

[Morch]

The article is exactly what I have been saying for the last 2 years on this forum.

Israel should either annex the whole of the West Bank, end the apartheid situation, and grant equal citizenship to Palestinians, or end the occupation and move towards creating a 2 state solution with an economically viable contiguous Palestinian state with Gaza eventually connected via a rail tunnel. While at the same time addressing Israel's security concerns for several years to come, with some sort of demilitarization and a US/Israeli/UN/EU/NATO presence in the Jordan Valley?

As Kerry has said previously: the status quo is unsustainable. Israel cannot remain a Jewish state and a democracy if it annexes the West Bank. And it cannot have a Jewish state unless Jews are a majority, and the only way it could do that is to ethnically cleanse Palestinians, which it has done twice already. The whole world is watching this time via international and social media. So it won't get away with that ploy again.

What's left? Bite the bullet and get down to some serious peace talks. A moratorium on colony building and release of political prisoners would create some goodwill, and at the same time ease tensions and the current round of violence, giving Palestinians some hope for a better future.

Yes, I know all easier said than done. Maybe we will have to wait for fresh Israeli elections and/or Abbas to be replaced.

By "exactly" you meant sans the ever-present vilifying and demonization of Israel typical of your posts? Amazingly a point can be made without them. The one obvious similarity is that there is not much said about the Palestinian side, which is treated as essentially passive.

That the situation is not sustainable for the long term is obvious to most rational people. It can be made to seem possible to maintain by applying short/medium term frameworks. This, in turn, leads to a lessened imperative to discuss long term issues.

The argument that Israel can not be both a democratic and Jewish state will not be put aside by a two-state solution. It would simply morph into Israel not being democratic as it supports a large minority which is not Jewish. The premise, of course, is that democracies come in set shapes and sizes.

New Israeli elections would not necessarily bring about a more pro-peace coalition, or one that could deliver even if had the will. Same goes for Abbas being "replaced" (got to love dancing around that one).

[Morch]

But the Islamic militants of Hamas seized control of Gaza, periodically firing rockets at Israel and leading the sides to three mini-wars to date. Many Israelis fear the West Bank will face a similar fate if Israeli withdraws​

Not entirely correct. The Islamic terrorists of Hamas were ELECTED by the Palestinians. If they can not make peace with Israel, they should never have a country of their own.

Having peace with Israel, is not, by itself, a criteria for having a state.

Israel could, and rightly so, reject the creation of a Palestinian state that would be openly hostile from the start. I do not believe anyone imagines this to be a real proposition.

By the same rational (unless I misunderstood something), Israel having elected officials who deny the Palestinian right for self-determination, and being openly hostile to the Palestinians would mean Israel does not have a right to exist?

[Morch]

They are burying their heads in the sand, refusing to face reality, hoping that soon the weight of all the illegal settlements will make it impossible to hand the West Bank back to the rightful owners and ignoring the inevitable.

Perhaps they even think that the world will support them when next they (ahem) "defend" themselves.

As usual, missing the point by using a wide brush "they". The article does make several observations on the ways which the issues are seen by Israelis, hardly as monolithic as suggested.

Applying the above ideas to the Palestinians, how is their past, present and, apparently, future approach differ much?

Edited December 7, 2015 by Morch

[GinBoy2]

To be simplistic, not something that is easily applied to any of the middle east; but ultimately the two huge obstacles need to be addressed.

The settlements in the west bank need to go...all of them

The Palestinians need to give up on the right of return & east Jerusalem

Neither of those are palatable to either side, but reality is in middle eastern terms always unpalatable.

[willyumiii]

Israel is about 68 years old now.

That should be old enough to take care of itself.

Israle needs to sink or swim on it's own.

[Morch]

But the Islamic militants of Hamas seized control of Gaza, periodically firing rockets at Israel and leading the sides to three mini-wars to dyate. Many Israelis fear the West Bank will face a similar fate if Israeli withdraws​

Not entirely correct. The Islamic terrorists of Hamas were ELECTED by the Palestinians. If they can not make peace with Israel, they should never have a country of their own.

Israelis elected Netanyahu, and there's been nothing but trouble since they did so..wars, intifadas..maybe time Israelis tried a different strategy to coexist with their geographic neighbors for eternity.

Netanyahu was not the Prime Minister during the two previous Intifadas. He was also not the Prime Minister of Israel during any major war. You might be referring to the 2012 and 2014 fighting in Gaza. If that was the scope of the claim, such took place under other Israeli Prime Ministers in the past, not specifically a Netanyahu thing.

As you often seem to forget, Israel does have long standing peace agreements with two of its neighbors. Pinning it all on Israel simply doesn't hold well with the facts.

[cooked]

I don't see one post here referring to the fact that the Palestinians have vowed to exterminate the Jews. I believe it is written into their constitution. One of the aims of Islam is to exterminate the Jews (and after that the Christians). There is no such thing as a moderate or a radical Muslim, there are only Muslims (as stated by Erdogan, president of Turkey. He also believes that Muhammed rode to Damascus and back on a flying horse and gets annoyed when people chuckle).

Israel is committing crimes every day? You mean they shoot Muslim scum bags that stab innocent Jews? Or that when rockets are aimed at their schools, they fire back?

[Morch]

But the Islamic militants of Hamas seized control of Gaza, periodically firing rockets at Israel and leading the sides to three mini-wars to date. Many Israelis fear the West Bank will face a similar fate if Israeli withdraws​

Not entirely correct. The Islamic terrorists of Hamas were ELECTED by the Palestinians. If they can not make peace with Israel, they should never have a country of their own.

That's a two-way street.

Israel holds all the cards. The Palestinians are the ones living in a purgatory of their own making with no economy and a bumbling military.

No, it doesn't. Any two societies so intertwined got mutual effects and holds on each other.

The Palestinians are responsible and should be held accountable for much that had led to their present predicament, but this by itself does not mean Israel gets total absolution of its own contribution to the situation.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Morch

[Morch]

But the Islamic militants of Hamas seized control of Gaza, periodically firing rockets at Israel and leading the sides to three mini-wars to date. Many Israelis fear the West Bank will face a similar fate if Israeli withdraws​

Not entirely correct. The Islamic terrorists of Hamas were ELECTED by the Palestinians. If they can not make peace with Israel, they should never have a country of their own.

The duty of making peace does not only lay on the Palestinians even Israel have to make an effort to make peace. A lot of younger Israelis want piece but the right wing are not able to accept the Palestinians.

Peace is made between two parties, not one. So anything to the effect that its this side's or that side's responsibility is pretty nonsensical.

Not quite sure where the notion of pro-peace younger Israelis vs. the right-wing comes from. There are young people supporting whatever political agenda out there, and as often is the case with youngsters, they tend to go for the radical versions of whichever. Unless mistaken, if current demographic trends remain unchanged, it actually means more younger voters for religious and right-wing parties.

The same, by the way, can be said (as a generalization, of course) on the Palestinian society - the ones participating in the current riots, attacks and demonstrations are for the most part young, for the most part disenchanted with Palestinian politics and hold radical, if not always clearly defined, agendas.

[Morch]

Israel faces a bunch of cruddy choices. All of them have serious downsides and major risks, potentially existential ones. So it's not exactly surprising that for the time being the status quo is winning the day. The OP listing issues with different paths was informative. If there was an obvious great choice with a high chance of bringing peace and low chance of risking Israel's existence, it would have been taken already.

A bunch of cruddy choices that they created for themselves.

But even if they didn't create the cruddy choices, why should the Palestinians have to suffer because poor little Israel has cruddy choices?

The Palestinians are ought to be held accountable for their part in shaping their own misfortune. It does not mean Israel did not play its part, of course, Constantly depicting of the Palestinians as being helpless to take charge of their own destiny does nothing to support confidence that they could uphold agreements, let alone run a functioning state. Acknowledging that multiple factors lead to the present situation is essential, even without agreeing on each and every one of them.

Not a question of "should". International relations do not run on school yard level concepts of fairness and justice (well, second thoughts about that reflecting on some schools I attended...).