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

[Loren Pechtel]

Wikileaks says otherwise:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/55071

Don't think we need a call. She is for a two-state solution and thinks the status quo is unsustainable. 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. We don't need to wade into Israeli politics but we should be clear and unabashed about our own position.

 

[laughing dog]

As any poster on a discussion board should know by now - talk is cheap. It are the deeds, not words, that count.

 

[untermensche]

If Israel wanted a 2 state solution it could have had one a long time ago. It could have one next year.

Israel wants a shattered scattered Palestinian state, not something serious.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Israel wants what it has, minus the palestinians, and Israel is getting what it wants.

Israel relies on the public perception of moral high ground though, so what Palestine needs is a Gandhi type pushing passive resistance instead of terrorist action. If Israel loses world support and becomes seen as the pariah... that could mean real change.

 

[Bronzeage]

Israel wants what it has, minus the palestinians, and Israel is getting what it wants.

Israel relies on the public perception of moral high ground though, so what Palestine needs is a Gandhi type pushing passive resistance instead of terrorist action. If Israel loses world support and becomes seen as the pariah... that could mean real change.

It seems like an obvious solution, but the Palestinian experience with the Israeli government is much different from what India experienced with the British Empire. Gandhi himself admitted that his non-violent resistance campaign would not have worked with any other colonial power. The British people could not see themselves as oppressors and when their choice became to oppress, or let go, they let go.

Israel can say what they like, but their actions talk the loudest.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Israel wants what it has, minus the palestinians, and Israel is getting what it wants.

Israel relies on the public perception of moral high ground though, so what Palestine needs is a Gandhi type pushing passive resistance instead of terrorist action. If Israel loses world support and becomes seen as the pariah... that could mean real change.

It seems like an obvious solution, but the Palestinian experience with the Israeli government is much different from what India experienced with the British Empire. Gandhi himself admitted that his non-violent resistance campaign would not have worked with any other colonial power. The British people could not see themselves as oppressors and when their choice became to oppress, or let go, they let go.

Israel can say what they like, but their actions talk the loudest.

But the support for Israel internationally is wholely dependent on the perception of them as the civilized good guys surrounded by a sea of barbaric monsters . If the Palestinians feed into the perception of their being barbaric monsters, the crimes of Israel are going to be ignored as part of the necessity to deal with that sort of problem. If they're dragging off people who are sitting there quietly protesting in a non-violent manner, however, it's more difficult for the rest of the planet to find a way to be looking elsewhere when the Israelis kill a bunch of kids or something.

 

[Jayjay]

What was it that Loren always says about these Middle-Easterners commenting on the two state solution? Oh right, "it's one message for western ears, and another for their own people".

 

[fromderinside]

Neither side wants a two state solution. Both want a one state, theirs, solution.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It seems like an obvious solution, but the Palestinian experience with the Israeli government is much different from what India experienced with the British Empire. Gandhi himself admitted that his non-violent resistance campaign would not have worked with any other colonial power. The British people could not see themselves as oppressors and when their choice became to oppress, or let go, they let go.

Israel can say what they like, but their actions talk the loudest.

But the support for Israel internationally is wholely dependent on the perception of them as the civilized good guys surrounded by a sea of barbaric monsters . If the Palestinians feed into the perception of their being barbaric monsters, the crimes of Israel are going to be ignored as part of the necessity to deal with that sort of problem. If they're dragging off people who are sitting there quietly protesting in a non-violent manner, however, it's more difficult for the rest of the planet to find a way to be looking elsewhere when the Israelis kill a bunch of kids or something.

Exactly.

Israel is a nation built on holocaust guilt. Its foundation and continued support depends almost entirely on the appearance of holding the moral high ground. If Palestinians can work against that, Israel loses its international identity and support.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

It seems like an obvious solution, but the Palestinian experience with the Israeli government is much different from what India experienced with the British Empire. Gandhi himself admitted that his non-violent resistance campaign would not have worked with any other colonial power. The British people could not see themselves as oppressors and when their choice became to oppress, or let go, they let go.

Israel can say what they like, but their actions talk the loudest.

But the support for Israel internationally is wholely dependent on the perception of them as the civilized good guys surrounded by a sea of barbaric monsters...

Considering it's only the United States and the UK that still hold this perception, I think that's kind of irrelevant. If Israel nerve gased the Gaza Strip tonight, the U.S. would be making excuses for them by morning and the Pentagon would be asking them if their supply of nerve gas needed a top off.

If the Palestinians feed into the perception of their being barbaric monsters, the crimes of Israel are going to be ignored as part of the necessity to deal with that sort of problem. If they're dragging off people who are sitting there quietly protesting in a non-violent manner, however, it's more difficult for the rest of the planet to find a way to be looking elsewhere when the Israelis kill a bunch of kids or something.

It's not always easy for me to tell when you're being sarcastic

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But the support for Israel internationally is wholely dependent on the perception of them as the civilized good guys surrounded by a sea of barbaric monsters...

Considering it's only the United States and the UK that still hold this perception, I think that's kind of irrelevant. If Israel nerve gased the Gaza Strip tonight, the U.S. would be making excuses for them by morning and the Pentagon would be asking them if their supply of nerve gas needed a top off.

Considering that it's the United States and the UK which hold this perception, it's most certainly relevant. They're the ones who can most easily provide the muscle to back up their perception and the rest of the world is left sitting there liked neutered bitches in regards to Israel because they're not willing to face the consequences of standing up to the US and the UK over them, so their different perceptions are the ones which are kind of irrelevant because their perceptions don't lead to policies or actions.

However, the US also used to be a strong supporter of South Africa during the apartheid regime until the public outcry of "Hey dude, why the fuck are you supporting this bullshit?" became too much for the government to handle and their support vanished and the regime went along with it. So long as Israel is fighting against Islamic terrorists who blow up buses and the like, US support isn't going to change because it's not like Israel is killing people or something. If Israel were to be fighting against people who stage mass sit-ins and the like, there's a chance of undercutting the US support and with it the sole impediment against forcing Israel to do something different.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Considering it's only the United States and the UK that still hold this perception, I think that's kind of irrelevant. If Israel nerve gased the Gaza Strip tonight, the U.S. would be making excuses for them by morning and the Pentagon would be asking them if their supply of nerve gas needed a top off.

Considering that it's the United States and the UK which hold this perception, it's most certainly relevant. They're the ones who can most easily provide the muscle to back up their perception and the rest of the world is left sitting there liked neutered bitches in regards to Israel because they're not willing to face the consequences of standing up to the US and the UK over them, so their different perceptions are the ones which are kind of irrelevant because their perceptions don't lead to policies or actions.

That's kinda my point... the U.S. and the U.K. hold perceptions that are ENTIRELY divorced from the reality of anything Israel does. Netanyahu would literally have to strangle Fareed Zakaria with his own entrails on national television before the U.S. government would even CONSIDER suspending military aid. Less so for the Palestinians; the IDF could (and has) run over whole crowds of protesters with a bulldozer and the State Department would just yawn and ask them to play nice.

However, the US also used to be a strong supporter of South Africa during the apartheid regime until the public outcry of "Hey dude, why the fuck are you supporting this bullshit?" became too much for the government to handle...

When Palestinians make up 16% of the U.S. population and when a typical American is willing to stand in solidarity with -- of all people -- Muslims and foreigners, then the situation might be analogous. Until then, we have an electorate that still isn't entirely sure that all Palestinians aren't terrorists and is already accustomed to the idea that saying anything negative about Israel whatsoever is tantamount to anti-semitism.

If Israel were to be fighting against people who stage mass sit-ins and the like, there's a chance of undercutting the US support and with it the sole impediment against forcing Israel to do something different.

Israel's been doing that in the West Bank for over ten years now and nobody in the "west" seems to have noticed.

 

[LordKiran]

Israel wants what it has, minus the palestinians, and Israel is getting what it wants.

Israel relies on the public perception of moral high ground though, so what Palestine needs is a Gandhi type pushing passive resistance instead of terrorist action. If Israel loses world support and becomes seen as the pariah... that could mean real change.

It seems like an obvious solution, but the Palestinian experience with the Israeli government is much different from what India experienced with the British Empire. Gandhi himself admitted that his non-violent resistance campaign would not have worked with any other colonial power. The British people could not see themselves as oppressors and when their choice became to oppress, or let go, they let go.

Israel can say what they like, but their actions talk the loudest.

Only half correct. The reality is that Britain just got done fighting two exhaustive and costly world wars and was in no position to assert it's rule on a unified India.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Considering that it's the United States and the UK which hold this perception, it's most certainly relevant. They're the ones who can most easily provide the muscle to back up their perception and the rest of the world is left sitting there liked neutered bitches in regards to Israel because they're not willing to face the consequences of standing up to the US and the UK over them, so their different perceptions are the ones which are kind of irrelevant because their perceptions don't lead to policies or actions.

That's kinda my point... the U.S. and the U.K. hold perceptions that are ENTIRELY divorced from the reality of anything Israel does. Netanyahu would literally have to strangle Fareed Zakaria with his own entrails on national television before the U.S. government would even CONSIDER suspending military aid. Less so for the Palestinians; the IDF could (and has) run over whole crowds of protesters with a bulldozer and the State Department would just yawn and ask them to play nice.

However, the US also used to be a strong supporter of South Africa during the apartheid regime until the public outcry of "Hey dude, why the fuck are you supporting this bullshit?" became too much for the government to handle...

When Palestinians make up 16% of the U.S. population and when a typical American is willing to stand in solidarity with -- of all people -- Muslims and foreigners, then the situation might be analogous. Until then, we have an electorate that still isn't entirely sure that all Palestinians aren't terrorists and is already accustomed to the idea that saying anything negative about Israel whatsoever is tantamount to anti-semitism.

If Israel were to be fighting against people who stage mass sit-ins and the like, there's a chance of undercutting the US support and with it the sole impediment against forcing Israel to do something different.

Israel's been doing that in the West Bank for over ten years now and nobody in the "west" seems to have noticed.

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. While that is the case, the US is going to shield Israel and Israel is going to be able to act with impunity without regards to the opinions of the rest of the world as a result because none of the rest of the world is willing to challenge the US over them.

 

[Bronzeage]

It seems like an obvious solution, but the Palestinian experience with the Israeli government is much different from what India experienced with the British Empire. Gandhi himself admitted that his non-violent resistance campaign would not have worked with any other colonial power. The British people could not see themselves as oppressors and when their choice became to oppress, or let go, they let go.

Israel can say what they like, but their actions talk the loudest.

But the support for Israel internationally is wholely dependent on the perception of them as the civilized good guys surrounded by a sea of barbaric monsters . If the Palestinians feed into the perception of their being barbaric monsters, the crimes of Israel are going to be ignored as part of the necessity to deal with that sort of problem. If they're dragging off people who are sitting there quietly protesting in a non-violent manner, however, it's more difficult for the rest of the planet to find a way to be looking elsewhere when the Israelis kill a bunch of kids or something.

Israel has a large constituency in the US, and that has always been a political reality. Another political reality has been Israel's proxy value as and extension of the US military.

Since the US now has an extensive up close and personal presence in the Middle East, having a proxy is not valued as it once was. In the first Gulf War, Israel was actually a handicap. The anti-Saddam coalition was predicated on the condition that Israel stay out of the fighting. Even when Scud missiles were falling on Israel, they had to stand down, lest the Arab countries bolt because Israel had attacked Iraq.

In the coming decades, Israel's influence over US policy will wain, if only because of fatigue on our part. If the US manages to resolve issues with Iraq and Afghanistan, Israel will be forced to capitulate on the Palestinian state. This of course, gives Israel no incentive to see either nation at peace with the US and the rest of the world.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Doesn't Israel itself purport to be a democracy? Why assume that Palestinians doing passive non violence would have no effect on the Israeli electorate and pressure on their leadership?

Seriously, what if Palestinians stop all rocket attacks etc and instead all sit down holding hands and sing songs of peace and freedom? That would have no effect?

 

[Bronzeage]

Doesn't Israel itself purport to be a democracy? Why assume that Palestinians doing passive non violence would have no effect on the Israeli electorate and pressure on their leadership?

Seriously, what if Palestinians stop all rocket attacks etc and instead all sit down holding hands and sing songs of peace and freedom? That would have no effect?

You'd have to ask an Israeli about that. Any Israeli leader who caves into the Palestinians, either to violence or peaceful civil disobedience will be assassinated.

Israel is a nation built upon theft of property. Any real peace with the Palestinians will have to include a reconciliation of property which is inside Israel.

It's the same process the US started in the late 1600's and we are still working out the details. Although Israel didn't have a continent to confiscate, they have greatly compressed the time line.

 

[bilby]

Doesn't Israel itself purport to be a democracy? Why assume that Palestinians doing passive non violence would have no effect on the Israeli electorate and pressure on their leadership?

Seriously, what if Palestinians stop all rocket attacks etc and instead all sit down holding hands and sing songs of peace and freedom? That would have no effect?

You'd have to ask an Israeli about that. Any Israeli leader who caves into the Palestinians, either to violence or peaceful civil disobedience will be assassinated.

Israel is a nation built upon theft of property. Any real peace with the Palestinians will have to include a reconciliation of property which is inside Israel.

It's the same process the US started in the late 1600's and we are still working out the details. Although Israel didn't have a continent to confiscate, they have greatly compressed the time line.

So the solution is to let the Palestinians build casinos?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

First Nations people in North America can live off the reservations. Is there anywhere they are forbidden to go based on being First Nation? I dont believe they are locked into concentration camps like the Palestinians are, are they? They even get to vote, don't they?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

First Nations people in North America can live off the reservations. Is there anywhere they are forbidden to go based on being First Nation? I dont believe they are locked into concentration camps like the Palestinians are, are they? They even get to vote, don't they?

Do they? Call your local Republican office and someone will get right on that.