Why there's no hope of peace in Israel

[Loren Pechtel]

https://www.washingtoninstitute.org...erate-on-tactical-issues-but-not-on-long-term

Also mostly consistent across generations, though by a much narrower majority, was rejection of permanent peace with Israel. Asked if a two-state solution should be “the end of conflict with Israel,” just 34% of young West Bank respondents answered yes; the proportion was even lower among older residents (25%).

What's the point in making an agreement that most of the people plan to not honor?

 

[Arctish]

This was interesting:

GAZANS LESS POLITICIZED

One startling difference did emerge from this survey—not between generations, but between West Bankers and Gazans. Respondents were asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed with this provocative statement: “The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is mostly just for politicians or old people, and I simply don’t think about it very much.” In the West Bank, only one-quarter agreed even “somewhat” with that proposition, but in Gaza, the figure doubled to 52%. Also surprising was the parity between younger and older residents on this seemingly age-related question.

The explanation for these highly counterintuitive findings almost certainly lies in the fact that Gazans have had little daily contact with Israelis since the 2005 withdrawal of soldiers and settlers. Their situation is a sharp contrast to conditions in the West Bank, where Israeli soldiers, settlers, and checkpoints are a constant reminder of the conflict.

Maybe if the Israelis went back to their side of the 1967 borders and stopped interfering with Palestinians going about their everyday business, there'd be a similar moderation of opinion in the West Bank.

 

[paladin.oa]

This was interesting:

GAZANS LESS POLITICIZED

One startling difference did emerge from this survey—not between generations, but between West Bankers and Gazans. Respondents were asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed with this provocative statement: “The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is mostly just for politicians or old people, and I simply don’t think about it very much.” In the West Bank, only one-quarter agreed even “somewhat” with that proposition, but in Gaza, the figure doubled to 52%. Also surprising was the parity between younger and older residents on this seemingly age-related question.

The explanation for these highly counterintuitive findings almost certainly lies in the fact that Gazans have had little daily contact with Israelis since the 2005 withdrawal of soldiers and settlers. Their situation is a sharp contrast to conditions in the West Bank, where Israeli soldiers, settlers, and checkpoints are a constant reminder of the conflict.

Maybe if the Israelis went back to their side of the 1967 borders and stopped interfering with Palestinians going about their everyday business, there'd be a similar moderation of opinion in the West Bank.

Nah, that's just crazy talk! Seriously, right now Israel is it's worst enemy.

 

[PyramidHead]

https://www.washingtoninstitute.org...erate-on-tactical-issues-but-not-on-long-term

Also mostly consistent across generations, though by a much narrower majority, was rejection of permanent peace with Israel. Asked if a two-state solution should be “the end of conflict with Israel,” just 34% of young West Bank respondents answered yes; the proportion was even lower among older residents (25%).

What's the point in making an agreement that most of the people plan to not honor?

Why should the Palestinians honor it? There should be one state: Palestine. Before Israeli Zionists teamed up with British military power to invade and settle there, it was Palestine. They didn't ask the inhabitants of Palestine if they were okay with somebody setting up a nation in their backyard, they just decided in 1917 that Zionist settlers were entitled to it. Thirty years later, they handed a politically neutered Palestine over to the UN, after Israel had established a firm presence there and the prior denizens were brutalized into submission. What possible justification is there for anything other than a solution of precisely one state, Palestine? What reason could there be for Palestine to honor any terms that include the legitimacy of an invading and occupying aggressor as equal to the victims of their aggression?

 

[Jarhyn]

https://www.washingtoninstitute.org...erate-on-tactical-issues-but-not-on-long-term

Also mostly consistent across generations, though by a much narrower majority, was rejection of permanent peace with Israel. Asked if a two-state solution should be “the end of conflict with Israel,” just 34% of young West Bank respondents answered yes; the proportion was even lower among older residents (25%).

What's the point in making an agreement that most of the people plan to not honor?

Why should the Palestinians honor it? There should be one state: Palestine. Before Israeli Zionists teamed up with British military power to invade and settle there, it was Palestine. They didn't ask the inhabitants of Palestine if they were okay with somebody setting up a nation in their backyard, they just decided in 1917 that Zionist settlers were entitled to it. Thirty years later, they handed a politically neutered Palestine over to the UN, after Israel had established a firm presence there and the prior denizens were brutalized into submission. What possible justification is there for anything other than a solution of precisely one state, Palestine? What reason could there be for Palestine to honor any terms that include the legitimacy of an invading and occupying aggressor as equal to the victims of their aggression?

The justification is that the people of Israel are there now. Whether there should be one state or two, everyone deserves a right to go where they please, access quality education and medical care, seek employment without discrimination, and import/export as is economically useful for the nation(s); that they are expected to buy and pay for land in a way common to all persons in their nation(s), and that they have representation in their government consummate to their existence rather than ethnic or religious background.

People need to seriously be forced to get over the rampant fucking racism and religious divisiveness, through strong educational and economic reforms. Kicking people out, any people, is not a winning proposition. The way forward is to let people in, not push people out.

 

[laughing dog]

https://www.washingtoninstitute.org...erate-on-tactical-issues-but-not-on-long-term

Also mostly consistent across generations, though by a much narrower majority, was rejection of permanent peace with Israel. Asked if a two-state solution should be “the end of conflict with Israel,” just 34% of young West Bank respondents answered yes; the proportion was even lower among older residents (25%).

What's the point in making an agreement that most of the people plan to not honor?

Your conclusion does not follow from the article. Whether something "should be" is different than "will be".

 

[Bronzeage]

Israel has steadily followed a policy which makes a two state solution technically impossible.

The two state solution is the only one acceptable to the Palestinians and the neighboring nations which have to deal with the Palestinians. Israel is just hoping their economic power and alliance with the US will last long enough to wear the Palestinians down. Israel-Palestine will become a quasi-apartheid state, with Israelis holding all political and economic power, and Palestinians dependent on their benevolence.

There are two ways this could go. Israel is hoping for something modeled on the way the US handled their Native American problem. Palestinians who stay on the reservation get to pretend they have autonomy, as long as they don't make any trouble. Those who leave the reservation, have to assimilate into the mainstream Israeli economy and not make any trouble.

The other way is much more likely. The Palestinians grow and outnumber the Israelis, but Israel refuses to concede equal rights. Israel is forced to endure the same kind of siege which South Africa endured until they finally gave up. At that point, the one state solution will be complete, but it won't be the state they wanted.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Maybe if the Israelis went back to their side of the 1967 borders and stopped interfering with Palestinians going about their everyday business, there'd be a similar moderation of opinion in the West Bank.

Maybe if they pulled back to the 67 borders they would get what they got back then--continual attacks. Why should it be different this time around?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

https://www.washingtoninstitute.org...erate-on-tactical-issues-but-not-on-long-term

Also mostly consistent across generations, though by a much narrower majority, was rejection of permanent peace with Israel. Asked if a two-state solution should be “the end of conflict with Israel,” just 34% of young West Bank respondents answered yes; the proportion was even lower among older residents (25%).

What's the point in making an agreement that most of the people plan to not honor?

Why should the Palestinians honor it? There should be one state: Palestine. Before Israeli Zionists teamed up with British military power to invade and settle there, it was Palestine. They didn't ask the inhabitants of Palestine if they were okay with somebody setting up a nation in their backyard, they just decided in 1917 that Zionist settlers were entitled to it. Thirty years later, they handed a politically neutered Palestine over to the UN, after Israel had established a firm presence there and the prior denizens were brutalized into submission. What possible justification is there for anything other than a solution of precisely one state, Palestine? What reason could there be for Palestine to honor any terms that include the legitimacy of an invading and occupying aggressor as equal to the victims of their aggression?

If the Palestinians shouldn't honor it then you are saying there is no reason for Israel to make peace--you're actually supporting the status quo. Also, note that your approach leads to genocide and a world awash in nuclear terrorism. (Or, more likely, someone does a nuclear laydown, blow the whole place to bits to destroy the bombs.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Israel has steadily followed a policy which makes a two state solution technically impossible.

The two state solution is the only one acceptable to the Palestinians and the neighboring nations which have to deal with the Palestinians. Israel is just hoping their economic power and alliance with the US will last long enough to wear the Palestinians down. Israel-Palestine will become a quasi-apartheid state, with Israelis holding all political and economic power, and Palestinians dependent on their benevolence.

Did you not read the article I linked? The Palestinians do not consider a two-state solution acceptable! Their agreement would be a sham.

The other way is much more likely. The Palestinians grow and outnumber the Israelis, but Israel refuses to concede equal rights. Israel is forced to endure the same kind of siege which South Africa endured until they finally gave up. At that point, the one state solution will be complete, but it won't be the state they wanted.

Survival was possible in South Africa, it's not in Israel. Nuclear diplomacy 101--you never back a nuclear power into a corner. You want them backed into a corner--but they'll use their bombs in that case.

 

[Arctish]

Maybe if the Israelis went back to their side of the 1967 borders and stopped interfering with Palestinians going about their everyday business, there'd be a similar moderation of opinion in the West Bank.

Maybe if they pulled back to the 67 borders they would get what they got back then--continual attacks. Why should it be different this time around?

The evidence provided in your link indicates otherwise. Not that it matters.

Netanyahu is hell bent on expanding Israeli sovereignty to the Jordan River. Evidence that withdrawing from the West Bank and limiting the daily contact between Palestinians and Israelis would decrease the militancy of the younger generation is irrelevant because he doesn't care about that. He wants the land and resources, and figures Israel will eventually beat the Palestinians into submission.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Maybe if the Israelis went back to their side of the 1967 borders and stopped interfering with Palestinians going about their everyday business, there'd be a similar moderation of opinion in the West Bank.

Maybe if they pulled back to the 67 borders they would get what they got back then--continual attacks. Why should it be different this time around?

The evidence provided in your link indicates otherwise. Not that it matters.

Netanyahu is hell bent on expanding Israeli sovereignty to the Jordan River. Evidence that withdrawing from the West Bank and limiting the daily contact between Palestinians and Israelis would decrease the militancy of the younger generation is irrelevant because he doesn't care about that. He wants the land and resources, and figures Israel will eventually beat the Palestinians into submission.

What in the link gives you that idea?

As for the younger generation--they've been brainwashed to militancy for their entire life. Why should things get better??

 

[Arctish]

The evidence provided in your link indicates otherwise. Not that it matters.

Netanyahu is hell bent on expanding Israeli sovereignty to the Jordan River. Evidence that withdrawing from the West Bank and limiting the daily contact between Palestinians and Israelis would decrease the militancy of the younger generation is irrelevant because he doesn't care about that. He wants the land and resources, and figures Israel will eventually beat the Palestinians into submission.

What in the link gives you that idea?

The part I quoted and commented on.

As for the younger generation--they've been brainwashed to militancy for their entire life. Why should things get better??

You didn't read the article in your OP all the way through, did you?

 

[laughing dog]

At this time, there is little hope for true peace in that region. But to place the responsibility or blame for that one party is to ignore the perfidy on the part of all the parties that drives the fundamental lack of trust. It is a vicious circle that will only stop under two scenarios: utter destruction of one side or the fortitude and courage of longstanding leadership on the part of all parties that encourages and engenders the necessary trust to deliver and maintain true peace. It is clear that none of the current leaders of the gov't of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza are willing or fit to do the latter.

 

[RVonse]

At this time, there is little hope for true peace in that region. But to place the responsibility or blame for that one party is to ignore the perfidy on the part of all the parties that drives the fundamental lack of trust. It is a vicious circle that will only stop under two scenarios: utter destruction of one side or the fortitude and courage of longstanding leadership on the part of all parties that encourages and engenders the necessary trust to deliver and maintain true peace. It is clear that none of the current leaders of the gov't of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza are willing or fit to do the latter.

Agree with this.

Throughout history, war is the rule and not the exception. And it usually takes an absolute destruction of one of the sides, such as was the case when the US settlers conquered the indigenous indians for their nation.

In the case of Israel/Palestine you would like to think this could go a little better since both cultures are very similar in race and appearance.

But it just won't because we are all living in the human condition.

 

[PyramidHead]

Why should the Palestinians honor it? There should be one state: Palestine. Before Israeli Zionists teamed up with British military power to invade and settle there, it was Palestine. They didn't ask the inhabitants of Palestine if they were okay with somebody setting up a nation in their backyard, they just decided in 1917 that Zionist settlers were entitled to it. Thirty years later, they handed a politically neutered Palestine over to the UN, after Israel had established a firm presence there and the prior denizens were brutalized into submission. What possible justification is there for anything other than a solution of precisely one state, Palestine? What reason could there be for Palestine to honor any terms that include the legitimacy of an invading and occupying aggressor as equal to the victims of their aggression?

The justification is that the people of Israel are there now. Whether there should be one state or two, everyone deserves a right to go where they please, access quality education and medical care, seek employment without discrimination, and import/export as is economically useful for the nation(s); that they are expected to buy and pay for land in a way common to all persons in their nation(s), and that they have representation in their government consummate to their existence rather than ethnic or religious background.

Wow. So if I move into your house without your consent, you should be willing to entertain a two-occupant solution for your dwelling? I would just have to say "Well, I'm here now, and I deserve a place to live, so..."

 

[Gun Nut]

Why should the Palestinians honor it? There should be one state: Palestine. Before Israeli Zionists teamed up with British military power to invade and settle there, it was Palestine. They didn't ask the inhabitants of Palestine if they were okay with somebody setting up a nation in their backyard, they just decided in 1917 that Zionist settlers were entitled to it. Thirty years later, they handed a politically neutered Palestine over to the UN, after Israel had established a firm presence there and the prior denizens were brutalized into submission. What possible justification is there for anything other than a solution of precisely one state, Palestine? What reason could there be for Palestine to honor any terms that include the legitimacy of an invading and occupying aggressor as equal to the victims of their aggression?

The justification is that the people of Israel are there now. Whether there should be one state or two, everyone deserves a right to go where they please, access quality education and medical care, seek employment without discrimination, and import/export as is economically useful for the nation(s); that they are expected to buy and pay for land in a way common to all persons in their nation(s), and that they have representation in their government consummate to their existence rather than ethnic or religious background.

Wow. So if I move into your house without your consent, you should be willing to entertain a two-occupant solution for your dwelling? I would just have to say "Well, I'm here now, and I deserve a place to live, so..."

You have Visa application processes to visit your property? May I review them for alignment with international law? I suppose if a visitor to your house does not violate any documented laws then you are powerless to evict them from your property too? Does your household uphold all OSHA standards for chores being performed? Are you prepared with a budget to payout fines for violations of NATO regulations?
Your house would be quite the shithole of a country, me thinks. Someone should file a formal declaration of war on it and just take it from you, perfectly legally, in order to bring it up to snuff of what a nation actually is.

 

[PyramidHead]

Wow. So if I move into your house without your consent, you should be willing to entertain a two-occupant solution for your dwelling? I would just have to say "Well, I'm here now, and I deserve a place to live, so..."

You have Visa application processes to visit your property? May I review them for alignment with international law? I suppose if a visitor to your house does not violate any documented laws then you are powerless to evict them from your property too? Does your household uphold all OSHA standards for chores being performed? Are you prepared with a budget to payout fines for violations of NATO regulations?
Your house would be quite the shithole of a country, me thinks. Someone should file a formal declaration of war on it and just take it from you, perfectly legally, in order to bring it up to snuff of what a nation actually is.

Are you having a stroke?

 

[Gun Nut]

My pen is (having a "stroke") get it? haha.

While it is true that an analogy can go only as far as it was intended to be used, I am trying to find in what way it parallels the discussion in ANY way.

But thank you for asking about my health.

 

[PyramidHead]

My pen is (having a "stroke") get it? haha.

While it is true that an analogy can go only as far as it was intended to be used, I am trying to find in what way it parallels the discussion in ANY way.

But thank you for asking about my health.

The question is about whether it's permissible to displace people who are living somewhere, declare it yours, and then expect them to honor a "two state" solution on the grounds of you being able to say "we are here now". I couldn't decipher anything relevant in your word salad regarding that question.