The last 30 years of Israeli state policy after the Oslo accords has resulted in facts on the ground (Israeli phrasing, not mine) to the tune of 700k Israeli settlers in the West Bank.
As the various calls for two states invariably ignore the Israeli facts on the ground, and do not propose any realistic vision for undoing them, at this stage they are merely promoting the creation of a Bantustan within the existing apartheid framework.
In other words, the israeli facts on the ground have killed off the possibility of a two state solution, where
Palestine would be an actual state. This means there are only two options:
A) a continuation of the apartheid regime of the present, potentially with a Palestinian collaborationist Banstustan, and with various degrees of Israeli perpetrated genocide and ethnic cleansing thrown in during the inevitable flare-ups of violence.
B) a plurinational post-apartheid democratic state with equal rights for all nationalities and religions from the Jordan to the Mediterranean.
I guess the third option is for Israel to self-ethnically cleanse the settlers from the West Bank, but that sounds even more outlandish than the supposedly idealistic option B.
There used to be an phrase that Israel can be “large, Jewish, democratic, but can only pick 2”. Over the last 30 years since Oslo, successive Israeli governments, more or less dominated by the Israeli Right, and basically by Netanyahu, has forced the choice of “Large”. So now the Israelis have to pick between Zionism and Democracy.
There the other part where between gaza and the west bank there is israel so who will control the land that palestinians need to pass to move from gaza to the west bank and the west bank to gaza
The last 30 years of Israeli state policy after the Oslo accords has resulted in facts on the ground (Israeli phrasing, not mine) to the tune of 700k Israeli settlers in the West Bank.
Which is wrong.
As the various calls for two states invariably ignore the Israeli facts on the ground, and do not propose any realistic vision for undoing them, at this stage they are merely promoting the creation of a Bantustan within the existing apartheid framework.
Anyone who actually agrees with the two state solution agrees that the borders go back to 1967, and everyone on both sides will have a right to return.
In other words, the israeli facts on the ground have killed off the possibility of a two state solution, where Palestine would be an actual state. This means there are only two options:
A) a continuation of the apartheid regime of the present, potentially with a Palestinian collaborationist Banstustan, and with various degrees of Israeli perpetrated genocide and ethnic cleansing thrown in during the inevitable flare-ups of violence.
B) a plurinational post-apartheid democratic state with equal rights for all nationalities and religions from the Jordan to the Mediterranean.
The chance for a Palestinian state is not gone, and Israel is not alone in making that harder. Even if you ignore Israelis and Palestinians, plenty of other groups don’t want peace and sabotage it when it is close.
Neither one of your solutions is viable, and it isn’t that black and white.
I guess the third option is for Israel to self-ethnically cleanse the settlers from the West Bank, but that sounds even more outlandish than the supposedly idealistic option B.
This is not helpful or useful in this conversation.
There used to be an phrase that Israel can be “large, Jewish, democratic, but can only pick 2”. Over the last 30 years since Oslo, successive Israeli governments, more or less dominated by the Israeli Right, and basically by Netanyahu, has forced the choice of “Large”. So now the Israelis have to pick between Zionism and Democracy.
It seems to me that you are contradicting yourself:
On the one hand you are saying that “who actually agrees with the two state solution agrees that the borders go back to 1967”.
On the other hand you are saying that the removal of the settlers from the West Bank is “not helpful or useful”.
I am very confused what you are proposing here. 1967 borders with the settlers in the Palestinian side of the border? Or did you flinch at the term “ethnic cleansing”, assuming wrongly that I meant “killing people”? When I wrote “Israel to self-ethnically cleanse the settlers” I meant to say that in this scenario, Israel would forcibly remove its own citizens from the colonies in the West Bank. A forcible removal of 700k jews from an area can be reasonably described as a form of ethnic cleansing. That’s all I meant.
So, to get around the words with mean connotations, I am not at all clear what scenario you are propagating. In your imaginary Two State Solution, what happens to the Israeli settlers?
Do they get forcibly removed to Israel? Because if you believe that any Israeli government could do that to 700k voters, I have some magic seeds to sell you.
Do they become Palestinian citizens, disarm and become subject to Palestinian law and subject to the legal monopoly of state violence by the army and police of Palestine? Because if you believe that is politically feasible, I have a whole warehouse of unicorn feathers to sell you.
On the other hand, a post-apartheid democracy would indeed have the political structures to slowly undo the damage, e.g., by mandating integration policies, establishing reparation schemes, etc.
The chance for a Palestinian state is not gone, and Israel is not alone in making that harder. Even if you ignore Israelis and Palestinians, plenty of other groups don’t want peace and sabotage it when it is close. Neither one of your solutions is viable, and it isn’t that black and white.
You are not explaining or giving any kind of argument why
(a) you think that “my” solutions are not viable
(b) the two state solution is viable.
You are just asserting that, without any rationale. My post above contains a specific reasoning. Where is my reasoning wrong? What is your reasoning?
At least you can admit it isn’t all Israelis.
What do you mean “at least”? If you want to start throwing spurious accusations of antisemitism, do it now and get it over with. I have no interest in bad faith discourse.
I made my points and you are choosing to not respond to them or understand them. Try asking good faith questions, and stop trying for bad faith tactics.
I only responded to the things that either I disagree with or genuinely don’t understand. For anything else, sure, thumbs up, what else is there to say?
Edit: in the meantime, you left my questions unanswered. What part of my reasoning is questionable? And what is your reasoning that the 2SS is attainable?
I don’t. It is and always has been a stalling tactic for the purpose of ethnic cleansing. The only viable solution always has a been a one state solution of equal rights for all.
Now if the Palestinians want to accept a two state solution out of desperation, sure I can live with that. Coming from anyone else? Get absolutely the fuck out of here. No ethno states, period. And Israel must abide by international law and allow the right to return of refugees.
It is absolutely insane for Carney to suggest a Zionist Palestine.
Why you needed to edit this 3 times in a couple of minutes, and then repost it after I responded, I can only assume you actually were hoping to get an out of context response, so I still won’t bother responding to your genocidal rhetoric about a 1 state solution, or continue this conversation further as I see you as a major part of the problem and do not have the energy to deal with you.
There can be no peace as long as the Zionist genocidal terror state of Israel continues to exist; Destroy it as Rhodesia was destroyed and let the people form a new fairer country.
Why you needed to edit this 3 times in a couple of minutes I will never know. Likely hoping to get an out of context response I assume so I won’t bother actually responding to your genocidal rhetoric about a 1 state solution, or continue this conversation further as I see you as a major part of the problem and do not have the energy to deal with you.
The one state solution is the best solution. The hell are you talking about. A two state solution would mean 2 millions Palestinians will be kicked out of Israel and 700k settlers will be removed from the west bank. A one state solution will give equal rights to both Israelis and Palestinians what genocidal about it?
How would you get some equivalent of reconstruction (the term as in US history) in order? Even with 10 years of radical reconstruction and sending the big-ass federal army into states to tightly enforce the rights of black people, they still got Jim Crow’d over with all kinds of abuse. Even with the 60s Civil Rights acts they’re still substantially disadvantaged and discriminated against today. This’d be even worse in Palestine’s rubble. Wealth is power, and if you just simply have a one-state solution, the rich will quickly eat the poor. On what basis can you make a reconstruction, since Israel has already resisted global “resolutions” (security council or not) time after time, and Palestine doesn’t seem to have a chance at scoring the victory the Union based its reconstruction authority on?
Nothing but giving back all post 67 land to Palestinians , giving the right to return to Palestinians who was ethnically cleansing and want to go back to Israel while accepting their laws and also having an army to defend the state for any other potential aggression
I would also include right to return for Israelis who wish to return to their home lands they were ethnically cleansed from under the condition they abide by the laws there as well.
But you are just here to argue, so again, you don’t see the middle ground.
Do you believe in a two state solution?
The last 30 years of Israeli state policy after the Oslo accords has resulted in facts on the ground (Israeli phrasing, not mine) to the tune of 700k Israeli settlers in the West Bank.
As the various calls for two states invariably ignore the Israeli facts on the ground, and do not propose any realistic vision for undoing them, at this stage they are merely promoting the creation of a Bantustan within the existing apartheid framework.
In other words, the israeli facts on the ground have killed off the possibility of a two state solution, where Palestine would be an actual state. This means there are only two options:
A) a continuation of the apartheid regime of the present, potentially with a Palestinian collaborationist Banstustan, and with various degrees of Israeli perpetrated genocide and ethnic cleansing thrown in during the inevitable flare-ups of violence.
B) a plurinational post-apartheid democratic state with equal rights for all nationalities and religions from the Jordan to the Mediterranean.
I guess the third option is for Israel to self-ethnically cleanse the settlers from the West Bank, but that sounds even more outlandish than the supposedly idealistic option B.
There used to be an phrase that Israel can be “large, Jewish, democratic, but can only pick 2”. Over the last 30 years since Oslo, successive Israeli governments, more or less dominated by the Israeli Right, and basically by Netanyahu, has forced the choice of “Large”. So now the Israelis have to pick between Zionism and Democracy.
There the other part where between gaza and the west bank there is israel so who will control the land that palestinians need to pass to move from gaza to the west bank and the west bank to gaza
Which is wrong.
Anyone who actually agrees with the two state solution agrees that the borders go back to 1967, and everyone on both sides will have a right to return.
The chance for a Palestinian state is not gone, and Israel is not alone in making that harder. Even if you ignore Israelis and Palestinians, plenty of other groups don’t want peace and sabotage it when it is close.
Neither one of your solutions is viable, and it isn’t that black and white.
This is not helpful or useful in this conversation.
At least you can admit it isn’t all Israelis.
It seems to me that you are contradicting yourself:
I am very confused what you are proposing here. 1967 borders with the settlers in the Palestinian side of the border? Or did you flinch at the term “ethnic cleansing”, assuming wrongly that I meant “killing people”? When I wrote “Israel to self-ethnically cleanse the settlers” I meant to say that in this scenario, Israel would forcibly remove its own citizens from the colonies in the West Bank. A forcible removal of 700k jews from an area can be reasonably described as a form of ethnic cleansing. That’s all I meant.
So, to get around the words with mean connotations, I am not at all clear what scenario you are propagating. In your imaginary Two State Solution, what happens to the Israeli settlers?
On the other hand, a post-apartheid democracy would indeed have the political structures to slowly undo the damage, e.g., by mandating integration policies, establishing reparation schemes, etc.
You are not explaining or giving any kind of argument why (a) you think that “my” solutions are not viable (b) the two state solution is viable.
You are just asserting that, without any rationale. My post above contains a specific reasoning. Where is my reasoning wrong? What is your reasoning?
What do you mean “at least”? If you want to start throwing spurious accusations of antisemitism, do it now and get it over with. I have no interest in bad faith discourse.
I made my points and you are choosing to not respond to them or understand them. Try asking good faith questions, and stop trying for bad faith tactics.
I only responded to the things that either I disagree with or genuinely don’t understand. For anything else, sure, thumbs up, what else is there to say?
Edit: in the meantime, you left my questions unanswered. What part of my reasoning is questionable? And what is your reasoning that the 2SS is attainable?
I don’t. It is and always has been a stalling tactic for the purpose of ethnic cleansing. The only viable solution always has a been a one state solution of equal rights for all.
Now if the Palestinians want to accept a two state solution out of desperation, sure I can live with that. Coming from anyone else? Get absolutely the fuck out of here. No ethno states, period. And Israel must abide by international law and allow the right to return of refugees.
It is absolutely insane for Carney to suggest a Zionist Palestine.
Why the two state solution is impossible.
Why you needed to edit this 3 times in a couple of minutes, and then repost it after I responded, I can only assume you actually were hoping to get an out of context response, so I still won’t bother responding to your genocidal rhetoric about a 1 state solution, or continue this conversation further as I see you as a major part of the problem and do not have the energy to deal with you.
Get lost hasbara. Israel has no legal right to exist.
Not anymore.
There can be no peace as long as the Zionist genocidal terror state of Israel continues to exist; Destroy it as Rhodesia was destroyed and let the people form a new fairer country.
deleted by creator
Why you needed to edit this 3 times in a couple of minutes I will never know. Likely hoping to get an out of context response I assume so I won’t bother actually responding to your genocidal rhetoric about a 1 state solution, or continue this conversation further as I see you as a major part of the problem and do not have the energy to deal with you.
Please tell this jew how a one state, of equal rights, solution is genocidal. Go on.
The one state solution is the best solution. The hell are you talking about. A two state solution would mean 2 millions Palestinians will be kicked out of Israel and 700k settlers will be removed from the west bank. A one state solution will give equal rights to both Israelis and Palestinians what genocidal about it?
How would you get some equivalent of reconstruction (the term as in US history) in order? Even with 10 years of radical reconstruction and sending the big-ass federal army into states to tightly enforce the rights of black people, they still got Jim Crow’d over with all kinds of abuse. Even with the 60s Civil Rights acts they’re still substantially disadvantaged and discriminated against today. This’d be even worse in Palestine’s rubble. Wealth is power, and if you just simply have a one-state solution, the rich will quickly eat the poor. On what basis can you make a reconstruction, since Israel has already resisted global “resolutions” (security council or not) time after time, and Palestine doesn’t seem to have a chance at scoring the victory the Union based its reconstruction authority on?
That is not at all what a two state solution should look like.
Tell me how it would look like
I would also include right to return for Israelis who wish to return to their home lands they were ethnically cleansed from under the condition they abide by the laws there as well.
But you are just here to argue, so again, you don’t see the middle ground.
If you mean jews returning to Arab countries they where kicked out in response of Zionists doing the Nekba then yes i would support that
Fine here I reposted it as a single post.