Putting the ideological nonsense from the hardliners aside, from a geopolitical view a two state solution would be complicated to say the least (I'll readily call it a pipe dream).

Israeli policymakers (or the international community, for that matter) have to ask themselves the question, what sort of state might Palestine develop into over time?

Is that going to be a state favorable to Israel, or one that is adversarial?

It doesn't take ideologically possessed hardliners to see that the answer is probably going to be the latter, given the immense historical grievances present, and no shortage of potential allies that also take an adversarial position towards Israel.

There might be a period of peace, but I think that would be short-lived, and that it would buckle under geopolitical realities and historical sentiments in no time at all.

At that point, Israel's position would be even more strategically compromised than it already is. In its current state Israel already has virtually no strategic depth - with a Palestinian state located (for example) on the West Bank, that would shrink even further.

To illustrate, at its narrowest point the distance between the West Bank and the Mediterranean is only about 15 km. A 15 minute drive.

From a military perspective it is undefendable.


So I agree with some of the sentiments that have already been shared in this thread, namely that advocating a two state solution is so unrealistic that it is basically a way politicians pretend to advocate for peace, while in fact supporting the status quo.

So I agree with some of the sentiments that have already been shared in this thread, namely that advocating a two state solution is so unrealistic that it is basically a way politicians pretend to advocate for peace, while in fact supporting the status quo. — Tzeentch

Agreed. It's also not clear to me at all how a two state solution would function economically. How would the economic viability of a state of Palestine, alongside Israel, be ensured?

I do think it's possible but it requires a lot of good faith negotiations. To me it would look like something like this:

Here's a two-state solution and how to get there:

1. Israel to unilaterally recognise a right for the Palestinians to have a sovereign state where the 1967 borders will be the basis for the size of Palestine
2. stop all further settlements in WB and evictions in East-Jerusalem, recognise ownership rights in East Jerusalem
3. repeal all discriminatory laws in Israel proper
4. no more collective punishment of Palestinians
5. no more blockade of Gaza and its air space and sea
6. no more mass destruction in response to ineffectual missiles or balloons
7. tear down the wall
8. For the interim period, Gaza and WB remain occupied territories but they will be policed instead of military oppression
9. Palestinians to commit to an indefinite cease fire as long as Israel maintains the above 8 points
10. Palestinians to recognise Israel along the 1967 borders as the basis of the size of israel

In other words, Israel had to stop committing crimes. There's no excuse.

Enter into the transition period where Palestine should be set up:
1. include the political wing of Hamas in talks as well as PA/fatah
2. land-for-land exchanges to arrive at comparable land size
3. Israel to pay Palestine an amount equal to all the monies spent supporting illegal settlers so it has the means to settle the new lands it receives through the land-for-land exchange
4. Palestine to hire their own first and Israeli contractors second (which will lead to "reparations" flowing back to Israel and creating economic interdependence)
5. have religious leaders negotiate the Temple Mount
6. Jerusalem as independent city-state administered by Palestinians and Israelis alike
7. gradually transition policing activities in Palestine to Palestinians
8. Set up a special task force of like minded Israelis and Palestinians to investigate (terrorist) crimes committed by Israelis against Palestinians and vice versa, where jurisdiction will be with the state of the victim
9. retreat from WB and Gaza and set up border controls
10. Declare a Palestinian state
11. Party with your Israeli neighbours

It's not clear to me how such a peace plan would address the legitimate concern about what happens if a new Palestinian state would align itself to Israel's adversaries.

I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of the Israelis. Palestine becomes its own state and a few years after the deal it aligns itself with Iran. What happens next? Would Israel realistically ever take such a risk?

It doesn't address Palestinian security either. You need to keep things open-ended, especially in light of the fact that both sides have their utterly shit extremist motherfuckers that will do everything to fuck up any progress you're trying to make. Acknowledging that also means you can consciously accept it and then think about how best to minimise that risk.

The problem is wanting to solve everything in one go before there's even a modicum of trust between the parties. That's simply not possible.

Palestinians are ostensibly aligned with Iran right now. The current situation is shit though. So that alignment in itself is meaningless. What exactly would the driver be for Palestinians to continue to align with Iran when they are safer and more secure when not being aligned with them? Die-hard ideologues yes but common people do not care - they want a roof and food on the table. The possibility of a better future is much more motivating but there is no such view in the situation they are now in. That's why it's paramount Israel stops committing crimes.

Also this is pertinent to this issues to:

This is a typical argument whereby Palestine is being penalized for what they hypothetically could do, (regardless of any actual objective) while the Israeli government is excused for what they actually do. — Maw

Finally, the nice thing about change, is that you can change again or even go back to what it was. If something doesn't work, you try something else. Future risks are not a good argument not to do anything now.

Future risks are not a good argument not to do anything now. — Benkei

Of course they are. If doing one thing now raises the risk of some other terrible thing happening in the future, that's absolutely something to consider in your decision making. I don't see why it wouldn't be.

In many ways I agree with you, and it's not so clear whether denying the Palestinians their right to self-determination won't come back to haunt Israel.

Yet it's hard to imagine the Israeli policymakers will see it this way, and they're holding almost all the cards.

Future risks are a reason to mitigate those risks and therefore do something, it's not an argument for doing nothing. Clearer?

It will certainly not come from within Israel any time soon. We need a boycott, divestment and sanction program just like what we did with south africa.

Personally, I wouldn't be comfortable with the idea of imposing something of that magnitude and with such potential risks on Israel.

Putting pressure on Israel to stop its human rights abuses is something that is long overdue, though. (To be fair, it's not like that hasn't been tried, but alas.)

However, it is unlikely given the huge political clout Israel holds in the United States.

Sadly, as many had already feared, settler violence against Palestinians living in the West Bank is now starting to flare up as well.

Three Palestinians Killed by Israeli Forces, Settlers in West Bank

CAIRO, Oct 11 (Reuters) - Three Palestinians were killed by gunfire from Israeli forces and settlers in Qusra village near the West Bank city of Nablus on Wednesday, the Palestinian official news agency said.

Eleven other Palestinians were wounded by live rounds, according to the Red Crescent.

Earlier in the day, Ghassan Daghlas, the acting governor of Nablus, told Reuters that Israeli settlers had attacked the village located south of Nablus, and fired live bullets at citizens and ambulances in the place.

Also reports of hostile airplanes (likely drones) in northern Israel.

Yep. This is going fully to shit.

Recognising the state of Israel to them means recognising sovereignty over land that they believe ought to be subject of negotiations in its entirety. — Benkei

You understand how hollow that sounds. Perhaps Hamas destroys the Israeli nuclear and chemical weapons deterrence totally and defeats militarily the IDF, then they could start negotiations about all of the borders, not just what about West Bank and Gaza based on the UN decisions done on the subject or the Oslo Accords.

In my view Likud is the singlemost largest obstacle to peace. — Benkei

I think the kill-all-Isrealites-including-the-babies Hamas fighters have done their share to raise support for Likud. Both get strength from each other.

I personally despise both Bibi and the Hamas leadership. Neither are for peace and both are a result of the development. We have come a long way from the Oslo peace process that started after the Cold War ended.

Something that makes Israelis angry: Egyptian intelligence services warned about Hamas being up to no good.

(The Times of Israel) Mounting questions over Israel’s massive intelligence failure to anticipate and prepare for a surprise Hamas assault were compounded Monday when an Egyptian intelligence official said that Jerusalem had ignored repeated warnings that the Gaza-based terror group was planning “something big” — which included an apparent direct notice from Cairo’s intelligence minister to the prime minister.

The Egyptian official said Egypt, which often serves as a mediator between Israel and Hamas, had spoken repeatedly with the Israelis about “something big,” without elaborating.

He said Israeli officials were focused on the West Bank and played down the threat from Gaza. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government is made up of supporters of West Bank settlers who have demanded a security crackdown there in the face of a rising tide of violence over the last 18 months.

You understand how hollow that sounds. Perhaps Hamas destroys the Israeli nuclear and chemical weapons deterrence totally and defeats militarily the IDF, then they could start negotiations about all of the borders, not just what about West Bank and Gaza based on the UN decisions done on the subject or the Oslo Accords. — ssu

It's not hollow but logically consistent. What rings hollow is your "might makes right" argument as a reason to ignore their position.

I think the kill-all-Isrealites-including-the-babies Hamas fighters have done their share to raise support for Likud. Both get strength from each other. — ssu

Given what I just quoted as their official position since 2017 this is simply a gross mischaracterization. Nobody actually wants to talk about a solution just have another popularity contest about who is worse.

But peace can be made with Hamas. There's only one party that categorically refuses a two states solution since its inception and that's Likud. Israel needs to be pressured to stop voting for it. BDS is the only way to do that.

What is the likelihood Bibi ignored it on purpose considering all the flack he's gotten in the past year? And now score big by levelling Gaza. I think we'll see the worst slaughter of Palestinians in our lifetime the coming weeks.

But peace can be made with Hamas. — Benkei

Don't they want to annihilate Israel?

It's not hollow but logically consistent. What rings hollow is your "might makes right" argument as a reason to ignore their position. — Benkei

How is it logical consistent?

Is it logical to crave for a country that hasn't existed and before the present was a British Mandate and before that part of the Ottoman Empire?

You do understand that logic and ethics are two different branches of philosophy. And they are here too.

If "might makes right" is hollow for you, then you should now live under Spanish rule. Because your ancestors did fight a long war for independence, so "might made right" then.

Given what I just quoted as their official position since 2017 this is simply a gross mischaracterization. — Benkei

That Hamas has killed children and decapitated women? The terror attacks were made to a) spread fear, b) seek revenge and give that feeling of revenge for Palestinians and c) make the IDF to launch a large full-scale attack on Gaza.

First their are official positions and then there are the ways how people fight wars.

What is the likelihood Bibi ignored it on purpose considering all the flack he's gotten in the past year? — Benkei

Or hoped it would happen... not perhaps with so many Israelis being killed, but still. A terror attack is what you need for this kind of operation that they are now starting, which is likely to be the total occupation of Gaza, going through all the parts of it. Too bad if your a military aged man in Gaza then.

The sickening issue here is that Hamas in my view is in the same boat with Bibi and Likud. Neither Hamas or Likud are secular, and base their justification on religion. Above all, Hamas opposed the secularity of the PLO. You can surely try to defend one group of religious zealots and then condemn other religious zealots. I simply hate them both.

And I want to live in another planet. Wishes are very easy, reality is a whole different situation.

Hamas is in a large part a creation of the Israeli state, as a means to weaken and divide the Palestinian opposition and undermine the PLO.

Since then, Hamas are the only ones who can at least fight Israel. They're a barbaric and hateful organization, no doubt about that. Compared to the crimes of Israel, they're a pea.

It's just that this time, they were well organized and managed to hurt Israelis in way no one ever expected. Revenge is expected, though I think the larger historical context of Gaza is sometimes minimized.

But revenge is one thing. Starving a civilian population, mostly children. Well that's genocide. Gaza is now going to be dust.

Knowledgeable people on this issue, like Amira Haas and Gideon Levy, have been warning that if Israel continued its course of action in the occupied territories, this was to be expected. So, lots of blame to go around.

Those images in Israel, but especially in Gaza - much worse, are soul crushing.

I think we'll see the worst slaughter of Palestinians in our lifetime the coming weeks. — Benkei

:100:

So why doesn't Israel just kill off all the Palestinians and end this interminable cycle of atrocities? Maybe the Jews don't (or haven't yet) for "the reason" whites in America don't kill off all Indigenous Peoples: to keep them dispossessed and under jackboot on 'reservations' – the cruelty must be the point – as a living monument to 'the settler-republic's supremacy', or some such inhumane delusion.

Once again, international law, as well as morality and decency, go completely out the window when a major power gets hit by a weaker power. Same occurred after 9/11.

You can’t claim you care about children and civilians and then turn around and kill them yourself.

There's only one party that categorically refuses a two states solution since its inception and that's Likud. Israel needs to be pressured to stop voting for it. BDS is the only way to do that. — Benkei

:up: :up:

There is such a movement.

Doesn't hurt if they're Muslim. Nobody cares about them, at least in the so called "West".

I'm sounding like a broken record, but what is going on in Gaza is so grotesque, barbaric and vile, that one finds a lack of words. This is monstrous.

the cruelty must be the point — 180 Proof

It is not about cruelty. It's about conquest - demonstrating their superiority by imposing their dominance. They cannot exterminate the inferior demograchic, otherwise they would not have anything inferior to contrast their superiority against. Whites in America didn't invent it, but they do it best, and Whites in Israel are following this blueprint to the T.

Insightful, and given the circumstantial evidence, highly probable. What I find hard to accept that a human being could entertain such a though.

Are you suggesting that the Prime Minister of Israel allowed his citizens to be killed in order to have an excuse for killing Palestinians? That sounds incredibly crass for a Prime Minister of a 'modern nation state' as they say.

Putting that aside, I think is it useful to think what will probably will happen (if it be too awful to contemplate):

1) The air campaign will continue until they find it safe to mount a ground operation against Hamas who are part of a population without food, water, electricity. I believe its called siege, as in siege of Leningrad.

2)Israel will take control of the Gaza strip and occupy it totally, or leave it as a lesson for future generations, as they see it.

Any guesses?

This all sounds familiar.

There was a woman with an infant in her arms who was killed as she almost touched the flag of truce, and the women and children of course were strewn all along the circular village until they were dispatched. Right near the flag of truce a mother was shot down with her infant; the child not knowing that its mother was dead was still nursing, and that especially was a very sad sight. The women as they were fleeing with their babes were killed together, shot right through, and the women who were very heavy with child were also killed. All the Indians fled in these three directions, and after most all of them had been killed a cry was made that all those who were not killed wounded should come forth and they would be safe. Little boys who were not wounded came out of their places of refuge, and as soon as they came in sight a number of soldiers surrounded them and butchered them there. — Lakota Accounts of the Massacre at Wounded Knee

People have evolved since then, since that some primitive societies found these things acceptable.

All I can say is that it is was all made up, not true.

It's not an insight but I consider Netanyahu depraved enough to make such a calculus that I worry it might actually be true. And given that he thinks Palestinians are dogs, I'm sure at no time could he have imagined the attacks being so large and coordinated. He probably estimated "something big" to be much smaller as he'd underestimate the Palestinians and probably the Egyptians as well (because not Israeli) and might not even have trusted that rapport without corroboration from Mossad, which appears at this point to have been absent. The likelihood certainly is not 0 but I have no clue how depraved that warmonger actually is.

No not really. If you're analysing the choices available to you, and "do nothing" is an available choice, then the risks involved in doing the other choices can absolutely be a factor in deciding if maybe you should do nothing instead.

You're hiding in your wardrobe. There's a murderer in your house looking for you. You haven't heard him in a minute, you don't know where he is. You could leave your wardrobe and run to the phone to call 911, or you could try to run to the front door, but you don't know if the killer is still in the house and would kill you if you did those things, or you could do nothing. Why isn't the risk of future death in this situation a good reason to do nothing? I don't understand.