He still seems immensely unpopular and polls show that Gantz has strong support for replacing him.
The idea was- as long as you are committing terrorism, I will be building settlements. Stop terrorism I will stop settlements.
Terrorist groups are neither rational nor grownups.
And "Boycott Divest Sanctions: is all very well, but where is the pressure on Hamas and the PLO to stop terrorism? Look, if they stopped terrorism, maybe something could be done.
I would love a two state solution. It would be awesome to see Israel and Palestine living peacefully side by side, trading with each other, building infrastructure to the benefit of both, and hopefully learning how to live together.
In the real world, wouldn’t a two state solution be just as bad or worse for Palestine? They still live in the same place, they still have the same radicalized population, poor infrastructure, and they would lose all of that refugee aid money.
I suspect that if Palestine became a state tomorrow, they would use the opportunity to import massive amounts of arms. Iranian IRGC or Hezbollah or both would be ‘advising’ them. When the situation becomes intolerable, Israel will be forced to stop it. Only this time it’s an invasion of a sovereign nation, and the world comes down on Israel twice as hard.
The only peaceful solution is for the Palestinians and their enablers to become peaceful. Anything else leads to war.
So how do we get the Palestinians to guarantee the peace? And how does that work?
But as I said, that’s a dumbass and counterproductive approach to the problem. If Israel really believes that Palestinians have a right to a Palestinian state in the occupied territories, it won’t make the establishment of a Palestinian state harder by irresponsibly telling Israeli settlers that they can permanently take over chunks of Palestinian land in the occupied territories.
And as we’ve seen, such a policy hasn’t done diddly-squat to actually disincentivize Palestinian militants from committing terrorist acts. Nope, as I said, the whole “retaliation for terrorism” premise for building settlements comes across as basically just a fig-leaf excuse for territorial expansionism on Israel’s part.
But, presumably, Israel’s leaders are supposed to be. And if they are, then that suggests, as I said in post #50, that the explanation of their idiotic settlement-expansion policy is simply that they don’t really take seriously the principle that both sides have legitimate claims to the homeland.
See posts #52 and #58. The point of the BDS movement isn’t to exert pressure on both sides to reach an agreement: the point is to exert pressure on the side with more power, namely Israel, to be willing to change the status quo to acknowledge Palestinian rights and sovereignty in a Palestinian state.
The question of whether Palestinians have a right to a sovereign Palestinian state alongside Israel isn’t dependent on whether it’s possible to attain a condition of zero anti-Israeli militant and terrorist violence on the part of all Palestinians. Just as the question of whether Israelis have a right to their sovereign state isn’t dependent on whether it’s possible to attain a condition of zero anti-Palestinian militant and terrorist violence on the part of all Israelis.
ISTM that de facto annexing your neighbor’s land with settler municipalities that you will later find it impossible to uproot is not something you do if you really believe that your neighbor has the right to control that land. Not even if you try to justify it with the excuse that hey, you’re only doing this to penalize your neighbor for his terrorist acts against you.
Once again “right” or “rights” is not the intended subject (although of course I have no control over that): it is what is possible.
Israel pretty much just left Gaza and Hamas took advantage of that to build a system and infrastructure dedicated to their own benefit and attacking Israel.
No amount of pressure will be able to make the sake to the Israeli public to repeat that without major guarantees that the same thing won’t happen again. Pretty much the inverse of @Kimstu ’s dumbass assessment: it will harden positions, convincing more moderates that world really is out to get them, which is already a common and understandable read of history.
Yes, but what people consider possible or impossible courses of action is very largely dependent on what they perceive to be the rights of the parties involved. We can’t realistically talk about what is possible while completely ignoring the question of who thinks who has a right to what.
Honestly I think people who would consider that are being stupid, and in any case it is a separate rabbit hole of a debate
I think we can accept that the different actors involved consist of different subgroups of what is “right”.
On the Palestinian side you have a group that feels genocide of Jews (not just Israelis) is currently right, to those who feel just Israelis, to those who feel only a solution that includes a Palestine right to return is right, to those who want a one state with no Jewish character to those open to some two state solution depending on details as just. And probably other thoughts.
On the Israeli side you have those who believe in a Biblical greater Israel and other settler minded mindsets but a larger group I think of those who want to live with safety in their country however it can be assured. They strongly believe that is right.
At this point many are willing to endorse drastic force measures in pursuit of that and have no confidence that any other approach can deliver it.
Whether or not you or I agree that Israelis are right to want to live in safety, or that Israelis should accept a solution that does not guarantee that or any of the potential Palestinian beliefs as right is not really a point that matters much to whether a solution is possible or impossible.
Tell me you think all Palestinians are terrorists without telling me you think all Palestinians are terrorists.
Like I already said, plenty of places and orgs already sanction Palestinians without equivalently sanctioning Israel. So this objection is just hypocritical.
No, because you see the idea is that those settlements make that area more likely to be part of greater Israel, not Palestine. In other words, the more you bomb, the smaller you nation will get. Was it a great idea? No.
Supposed to be but the current PM is a crook.
But see- all the PLO and Hamas has to do is stop terrorism. As long as they keep up the bombing the likelihood of getting Israel to give up is more or less. And why should Israel give up control when all that means that it is harder to strike back?
No, FIRST stop the criminal inhumane terrorism. THEN bring israel to the table with sanctions. People arent gonna buy into sanctions against a nation which is constantly being attacked by racist bombings, where the attackers have stated openly they want to wipe Israel and the Jews off the planet.
Yes it is. As long as Palestine shows that it is refusing to be governed by sane people, that it insists on it right to bombing school buses and nurseries- then it has no right to be a nation.
Do Not Negotiate with Terrorists. period.
Exactly, They spend $ better spent on feeding the poor and healing the sick on tunnels, secret bases and bombs. This is who you want to govern their own nation? Racist bigots who care more about killing jewish children than feeding their own?
Palestine has no right to be a nation as long as it insists on being a terrorist nation.
Their leadership, who were voted in (the last time they allowed an election) is terrorist. Not all Germans were nazis, but as long as their government was nazi, they suffered too.
Wiki- The Ad Hoc Liaison Committee coordinates the delivery of most aid to Palestinians. The entities that provide such aid are categorized into seven groups: the Arab nations, the European Union, the United States, Japan, international institutions (including agencies of the UN system), European countries, and other nations.[6] The United States has been a major donor, providing more than $5.2 billion through USAID since 1994.[7]
The international community has sent billions of dollars in aid to the Gaza Strip to provide relief to the more than 2 million Palestinians living there.[8] From 2014 to 2020, U.N. agencies spent nearly $4.5 billion in Gaza, including $600 million in 2020 alone.[8] According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, aid to Palestinians totaled over $40 billion between 1994 and 2020.[9][10]
Yes, and…?
I know they did. Are you saying they should have? Even the children who weren’t even born in 1933?
And…?
Did I say, at any time, that Palestinians don’t receive aid?
Do you think a polity can’t receive aid and simultaneously have it or its citizens sanctioned?
Do you know which country gets $3.3 billion/yr in aid (chiefly military) from the USA, yet has some of its citizens sanctioned by the same USA?
How is it you were able to look up “Aid to Palestine” on Wiki, a non sequitur, when you seem unable to find an actually relevant Wiki page/ Or any pertinent outside-Wiki sites?
Anyway.
Do either of you, @MrDibble and @Kimstu, think that a hypothetical very large scale BDS campaign will occur in a near term, and believe there is any reasonable moderate term possibility of a two state solution would result in some value of moderate term?
I can’t answer for the others, but to your first question define large scale. Biden just announced sanctions against extremist West Bank settlers, and there are already people boycotting Israeli goods.
As for your second question, who knows if it would result in a two state solution. But at the same time, why not try? Also, it is a good, peaceful way of showing you disagree with a certain country’s policies. Would you prefer that people show their disdain for Israel by sending funds to Hamas?
I do - I think there’s going to be less tolerance of Israel’s bullshit the more the Palestinian bodies pile up and the more the lies like “40 beheaded babies!” are exposed - that, and the old reliable “But we were genocided first!” defence is losing its potency with time. So people are going to be looking for something to do to indicate dissatisfaction with Israel, and BDS is sitting right there…
No, I don’t - see my first post. Although that’s not what BDS wants, anyway, given Palestinian Right of Return is one of their major goals.
I can’t parse this part of your question.
I consider state actors of a different group.
This thread is not addressing demonstrating your disagreement with the actions of any group. It is asking about the prospects for a two state solution occurring in the aftermath of the Hamas attack and the Israeli response.
And I do mean to specify a two state solution in the moderate term that actually is of some value, brings actual peace to the parties involved, possibly even an opportunity for a Palestinian state to thrive.
A two state which is then followed with attacks against Israel which then lead to a response such as we see now would not be a solution of value.
Okay. So for the purpose of the discussion of this thread we have you down as a no.
Yes, like I said right at the start, too much against it.
Whereas there’s nothing at all in the way of a single pluralistic secular state that discriminates against neither side?
For all the obstacles on the path to a two state solution, that’s at least a realistic destination.
I’d be surprised if: enough Israelis were willing to give on “a state of Jewish character” for that to sell, or if those who would would be able to get to enough trust level to accept that it wouldn’t just make security concerns worse?
You know more about what Israelis think than I do though.
Unfortunately the one state option apparently most palatable to Israelis according to polling I cited earlier would be one that limited Palestinian democratic participation. That would make apartheid claims actually valid.
ETA that I think I misunderstood you.
FWIW my own long term fantasy was for loose confederation.
The Biden sanctions have already led to mutterings amongst hard right Israeli elected officials. Those mutterings could force Netanyahu to make a choice between continuing to support the hard line settlers, or pulling his support. Or be the tipping point that forces him out of office so a new government can change the settlement policy. So sanctions don’t necessarily need to be specifically against state actors to have influence.
As for sanctions influencing a viable two state solution in the nearish term, again maybe? If the Israeli government pulls it’s support of West Bank settlers, that would be a huge step towards a two state solution. Right now, as you so rightly point out, they have little if any incentive to do so. However, at some point increased economic pressure could make Israel decide to chose a two state solution with some security concerns but increased economic stability. In the case of South Africa, it took ten years for those sanctions to force a change. Does ten years fall within your definition of moderate term?
Was I asked about the viability of a one-state solution? And did I give an answer that I don’t recall giving?
I don’t think either are realistic, absent some as yet unknowable change in the situation.