Israel doesn't want a two-state solution??

[Loren Pechtel]

I see a whole bunch of people ignoring what I actually quoted.

That's not Israel saying they want a two-state solution, that's someone highly placed in the US evaluating the discussions.

The problem is we have a bunch of people on the left who live on the bottom of that big Egyptian river and pretend 67 borders would bring peace.

 

[laughing dog]

I see a whole bunch of people ignoring what I actually quoted.

That's not Israel saying they want a two-state solution, that's someone highly placed in the US evaluating the discussions.

The problem is we have a bunch of people on the left who live on the bottom of that big Egyptian river and pretend 67 borders would bring peace.

Your OP title is "Israel doesn't want a two-state solution??" and you quote Wikileaks with "She had dozens of hours of convos with Bibi where he not only supported a two-state solution but actively negotiated to bring it about.”

That is what people addressed with the obvious point that talk is cheap but it is actions that count and the gov't of Isreal's actions are not consistent with achieving a 2 state solution at this time.

Perhaps the real problem here is your reading comprehension.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

It's not relevant that their perceptions are divorced from reality. What's relevant is that their perceptions are what drives their actions and that those perceptions aren't going to change so long as "Islamic terrorist" is on the receiving end of Israel's actions, because nobody pays any more attention after hearing that part.

If you can just slap the "Islamic terrorist" label on every Palestinian who gets killed by Israel for any reason, then what difference does it make WHAT the Palestinians do? NO amount of peaceful protest will convince a pro-Israel American media that the Palestinians are not, at the very least, the instigators of these conflicts.

Hell, we can't even get our journalists to agree that unarmed black people don't deserve to get shot by policemen. How in the world would we get them to make that logical leap for a group like the Palestinians whom the entire Israeli government spent the last 30 years trying to convince us are basically BORN as terrorists?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's not relevant that their perceptions are divorced from reality. What's relevant is that their perceptions are what drives their actions and that those perceptions aren't going to change so long as "Islamic terrorist" is on the receiving end of Israel's actions, because nobody pays any more attention after hearing that part.

If you can just slap the "Islamic terrorist" label on every Palestinian who gets killed by Israel for any reason, then what difference does it make WHAT the Palestinians do? NO amount of peaceful protest will convince a pro-Israel American media that the Palestinians are not, at the very least, the instigators of these conflicts.

Hell, we can't even get our journalists to agree that unarmed black people don't deserve to get shot by policemen. How in the world would we get them to make that logical leap for a group like the Palestinians whom the entire Israeli government spent the last 30 years trying to convince us are basically BORN as terrorists?

They don't slap "Islamic terrorist" labels on every dead Palestinian. When you look at their own data you find it was roughly 50/50 in the last war.

However, the Palestinians slap the "civilian" label on anyone short of a high level terrorist.

Then there are also the suicide-by-terrorism cases. I wouldn't call them Islamic terrorists but neither are they non-combatants. Many of the recent knife attacks fall into this category.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not relevant that their perceptions are divorced from reality. What's relevant is that their perceptions are what drives their actions and that those perceptions aren't going to change so long as "Islamic terrorist" is on the receiving end of Israel's actions, because nobody pays any more attention after hearing that part.

If you can just slap the "Islamic terrorist" label on every Palestinian who gets killed by Israel for any reason, then what difference does it make WHAT the Palestinians do? NO amount of peaceful protest will convince a pro-Israel American media that the Palestinians are not, at the very least, the instigators of these conflicts.

Hell, we can't even get our journalists to agree that unarmed black people don't deserve to get shot by policemen. How in the world would we get them to make that logical leap for a group like the Palestinians whom the entire Israeli government spent the last 30 years trying to convince us are basically BORN as terrorists?

They don't slap "Islamic terrorist" labels on every dead Palestinian. When you look at their own data you find it was roughly 50/50 in the last war.

However, the Palestinians slap the "civilian" label on anyone short of a high level terrorist.

Then there are also the suicide-by-terrorism cases. I wouldn't call them Islamic terrorists but neither are they non-combatants. Many of the recent knife attacks fall into this category.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

If you can just slap the "Islamic terrorist" label on every Palestinian who gets killed by Israel for any reason, then what difference does it make WHAT the Palestinians do? NO amount of peaceful protest will convince a pro-Israel American media that the Palestinians are not, at the very least, the instigators of these conflicts.

Hell, we can't even get our journalists to agree that unarmed black people don't deserve to get shot by policemen. How in the world would we get them to make that logical leap for a group like the Palestinians whom the entire Israeli government spent the last 30 years trying to convince us are basically BORN as terrorists?

They don't slap "Islamic terrorist" labels on every dead Palestinian.

YOU sure as hell did. So did the Israeli military. And the state department followed their lead.

When you look at their own data you find it was roughly 50/50 in the last war.

It was considerably less than that, but let's even assume you're right, that it really was 50/50. What sort of civilian-to-militant ratio would you personally find unacceptable? What civilian-to-militant ratio of deaths would the United States find unacceptable?

However, the Palestinians slap the "civilian" label on anyone short of a high level terrorist.

Thank you for illustrating my point. This right here is your natural "guilty until proven innocent" position: in MOST of those cases, the only evidence that they were involved in terrorism is the fact that the Israeli military killed them. You require the Palestinians to prove they WEREN'T terrorists before you give credence to their claim of innocence. And even with that starting assumption, you still blame the terrorists -- NOT Israel -- for civilian deaths, for instigating the conflict or for living too close to the civilians who caught the bullets.

It's the exact same situation with Black Lives Matter. It is illogical to expect someone to prove a negative; if you don't have to prove that someone really is a threat, then they have no logical way of proving that they're NOT.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It was considerably less than that, but let's even assume you're right, that it really was 50/50. What sort of civilian-to-militant ratio would you personally find unacceptable? What civilian-to-militant ratio of deaths would the United States find unacceptable?

50/50 after you correctly categorize all the "civilians" that get martyrdom pages. (Hint: those are only for the terrorists. They wait several months before putting them up when it's no longer news.)

And while the ideal ratio is no dead civilians the Israeli record is second to none for urban combat.

However, the Palestinians slap the "civilian" label on anyone short of a high level terrorist.

Thank you for illustrating my point. This right here is your natural "guilty until proven innocent" position: in MOST of those cases, the only evidence that they were involved in terrorism is the fact that the Israeli military killed them. You require the Palestinians to prove they WEREN'T terrorists before you give credence to their claim of innocence. And even with that starting assumption, you still blame the terrorists -- NOT Israel -- for civilian deaths, for instigating the conflict or for living too close to the civilians who caught the bullets.

No. The martyrdom pages. 100% proof of combatant status.

 

[Arctish]

Would someone who believes Israel wants a two state solution please describe the Palestinian State they think Israel has in mind?

The last time I saw anything quasi-official Israel put forth as a possible Palestinian State it was a patchwork of isolated towns, villages, and neighborhoods with limited powers of governance and no officially recognized ancestral land claims, not a contiguous land area with controls over borders, resources, immigration, or anything else that a normal independent State would have. And the proposal before that was for a Palestinian State somewhere other than Palestine.

I fully believe Israel would support a Palestinian State in the Sahara. I highly doubt Israel will allow one to form in the West Bank. So I think it would be helpful if we all agreed what sort of two state solution we're talking about before we discuss whether Israel would want it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Would someone who believes Israel wants a two state solution please describe the Palestinian State they think Israel has in mind?

The last time I saw anything quasi-official Israel put forth as a possible Palestinian State it was a patchwork of isolated towns, villages, and neighborhoods with limited powers of governance and no officially recognized ancestral land claims, not a contiguous land area with controls over borders, resources, immigration, or anything else that a normal independent State would have. And the proposal before that was for a Palestinian State somewhere other than Palestine.

I fully believe Israel would support a Palestinian State in the Sahara. I highly doubt Israel will allow one to form in the West Bank. So I think it would be helpful if we all agreed what sort of two state solution we're talking about before we discuss whether Israel would want it.

It's not a patchwork. It's two pieces but that's inevitable. A country can be in two pieces and still function. The US is in three pieces, there are several other nations with even more.

And they will not have border control until they demonstrate that they'll be peaceful. Of course this is a sticking point because they want a nation but to continue the war.


Personally, I'm not in favor of a two-state solution anymore, though. Hamas and Fatah are too hostile to each other, I think a three-state solution would make a lot more sense. Also, I do not believe there will be peace but with a three state solution there might be peace between Israel and Fatah. Israel/Hamas is going to be war no matter what.

 

[bilby]

Would someone who believes Israel wants a two state solution please describe the Palestinian State they think Israel has in mind?

The last time I saw anything quasi-official Israel put forth as a possible Palestinian State it was a patchwork of isolated towns, villages, and neighborhoods with limited powers of governance and no officially recognized ancestral land claims, not a contiguous land area with controls over borders, resources, immigration, or anything else that a normal independent State would have. And the proposal before that was for a Palestinian State somewhere other than Palestine.

I fully believe Israel would support a Palestinian State in the Sahara. I highly doubt Israel will allow one to form in the West Bank. So I think it would be helpful if we all agreed what sort of two state solution we're talking about before we discuss whether Israel would want it.

It's not a patchwork. It's two pieces but that's inevitable. A country can be in two pieces and still function. The US is in three pieces, there are several other nations with even more.

And they will not have border control until they demonstrate that they'll be peaceful. Of course this is a sticking point because they want a nation but to continue the war.


Personally, I'm not in favor of a two-state solution anymore, though. Hamas and Fatah are too hostile to each other, I think a three-state solution would make a lot more sense. Also, I do not believe there will be peace but with a three state solution there might be peace between Israel and Fatah. Israel/Hamas is going to be war no matter what.

Three pieces?

Did they link up the Hawaiian archipelago recently and not tell me?

 

[Arctish]

Would someone who believes Israel wants a two state solution please describe the Palestinian State they think Israel has in mind?

The last time I saw anything quasi-official Israel put forth as a possible Palestinian State it was a patchwork of isolated towns, villages, and neighborhoods with limited powers of governance and no officially recognized ancestral land claims, not a contiguous land area with controls over borders, resources, immigration, or anything else that a normal independent State would have. And the proposal before that was for a Palestinian State somewhere other than Palestine.

I fully believe Israel would support a Palestinian State in the Sahara. I highly doubt Israel will allow one to form in the West Bank. So I think it would be helpful if we all agreed what sort of two state solution we're talking about before we discuss whether Israel would want it.

It's not a patchwork. It's two pieces but that's inevitable. A country can be in two pieces and still function. The US is in three pieces, there are several other nations with even more.

And they will not have border control until they demonstrate that they'll be peaceful. Of course this is a sticking point because they want a nation but to continue the war.


Personally, I'm not in favor of a two-state solution anymore, though. Hamas and Fatah are too hostile to each other, I think a three-state solution would make a lot more sense. Also, I do not believe there will be peace but with a three state solution there might be peace between Israel and Fatah. Israel/Hamas is going to be war no matter what.

Please describe this two state solution your thread title implies Israel wants.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's not a patchwork. It's two pieces but that's inevitable. A country can be in two pieces and still function. The US is in three pieces, there are several other nations with even more.

And they will not have border control until they demonstrate that they'll be peaceful. Of course this is a sticking point because they want a nation but to continue the war.


Personally, I'm not in favor of a two-state solution anymore, though. Hamas and Fatah are too hostile to each other, I think a three-state solution would make a lot more sense. Also, I do not believe there will be peace but with a three state solution there might be peace between Israel and Fatah. Israel/Hamas is going to be war no matter what.

Three pieces?

Did they link up the Hawaiian archipelago recently and not tell me?

Those islands are close together with no other countries around, it's reasonable to consider them one piece.

Likewise, I'm counting the long chain of islands hanging off Alaska as part of that piece.

 

[Jayjay]

Three pieces?

Did they link up the Hawaiian archipelago recently and not tell me?

Those islands are close together with no other countries around, it's reasonable to consider them one piece.

Likewise, I'm counting the long chain of islands hanging off Alaska as part of that piece.

Please name even one country, which is split into two or more pieces in a way that traveling from one piece to the next is not possible except through some other country or countries. The US doesn't count, because there is route via international waters to both Canada and Hawaii.

Anyway I think the point you were responding to wasn't about the split between West Bank and Gaza, which is inevitable, but chopping up West Bank into numerous little non-contiguous areas with Israeli controlled roads and settlements. Like this map for example:

That's not a viable state by any standard.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Those islands are close together with no other countries around, it's reasonable to consider them one piece.

Likewise, I'm counting the long chain of islands hanging off Alaska as part of that piece.

Please name even one country, which is split into two or more pieces in a way that traveling from one piece to the next is not possible except through some other country or countries. The US doesn't count, because there is route via international waters to both Canada and Hawaii.

Anyway I think the point you were responding to wasn't about the split between West Bank and Gaza, which is inevitable, but chopping up West Bank into numerous little non-contiguous areas with Israeli controlled roads and settlements. Like this map for example:

That's not a viable state by any standard.

Try the India/Bangladesh border. It's a big problem because the surrounding nations aren't doing a very good job of providing utility services to the enclaves.

On the other hand, there are places in Europe with plenty of enclaves and nobody cares.

 

[Jayjay]

Please name even one country, which is split into two or more pieces in a way that traveling from one piece to the next is not possible except through some other country or countries. The US doesn't count, because there is route via international waters to both Canada and Hawaii.

Anyway I think the point you were responding to wasn't about the split between West Bank and Gaza, which is inevitable, but chopping up West Bank into numerous little non-contiguous areas with Israeli controlled roads and settlements. Like this map for example:

That's not a viable state by any standard.

Try the India/Bangladesh border. It's a big problem because the surrounding nations aren't doing a very good job of providing utility services to the enclaves.

On the other hand, there are places in Europe with plenty of enclaves and nobody cares.

According to wikipedia, there are only three exclaves in Europe, i.e. areas that are separated from the main countries completely surrounded by others. They are all small villages with just a few thousand inhabitants, and it's not a problem in Europe because they are all in Schengen treaty and have no customs or border checks - something that Israel would be unlikely to have with the hypothetical Palestinian State at least in the beginning.

The only truly comparable exclave in the world that I can find is the  Nakhchivan_Autonomous_Republic that is an autonomous region of Azerbaizan but disconnected from it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Try the India/Bangladesh border. It's a big problem because the surrounding nations aren't doing a very good job of providing utility services to the enclaves.

On the other hand, there are places in Europe with plenty of enclaves and nobody cares.

According to wikipedia, there are only three exclaves in Europe, i.e. areas that are separated from the main countries completely surrounded by others. They are all small villages with just a few thousand inhabitants, and it's not a problem in Europe because they are all in Schengen treaty and have no customs or border checks - something that Israel would be unlikely to have with the hypothetical Palestinian State at least in the beginning.

The only truly comparable exclave in the world that I can find is the  Nakhchivan_Autonomous_Republic that is an autonomous region of Azerbaizan but disconnected from it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India–Bangladesh_enclaves

Almost 200 enclaves and a couple dozen of them were inside other enclaves. I didn't realize the problem was fixed last year, though.

 

[untermensche]

Bottom line.

Israel has never been serious about a real 2 state solution.

 

[laughing dog]

Bottom line.

Israel has never been serious about a real 2 state solution.

I think none of the parties have ever been serious about a real (i.e. mutually acceptable) 2 state solution. Nor do I think any of the parties are likely to get serious about a real 2 state solution for a long time unless there is some earth-shaking event that changes the hearts and minds of most people in that region.

 

[untermensche]

Bottom line.

Israel has never been serious about a real 2 state solution.

I think none of the parties have ever been serious about a real (i.e. mutually acceptable) 2 state solution. Nor do I think any of the parties are likely to get serious about a real 2 state solution for a long time unless there is some earth-shaking event that changes the hearts and minds of most people in that region.

How were the Palestinians not serious at Taba?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think none of the parties have ever been serious about a real (i.e. mutually acceptable) 2 state solution. Nor do I think any of the parties are likely to get serious about a real 2 state solution for a long time unless there is some earth-shaking event that changes the hearts and minds of most people in that region.

How were the Palestinians not serious at Taba?

Because they were unwilling to agree to the non-negotiable points.

They reached a reasonable agreement on the side issues but that's meaningless if the big ones aren't settled.

 

[Arctish]

How were the Palestinians not serious at Taba?

Because they were unwilling to agree to the non-negotiable points.

They reached a reasonable agreement on the side issues but that's meaningless if the big ones aren't settled.

How does Israel refusing to negotiate on certain points make the lack of agreement the fault of the Palestinians?