By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 11 April 2012
Edit Thread
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
Mnementh said:
 

Yeah, you are right to a degree. But the UN-plan was the legitimation for the formation of israel, so saying that Palestine is no country borders on withdrawing legitimation to Israel. sure, the plan (especially the borderlines discussed at that time) cannot be executed unchanged today. But I think there is no other solution, that the existance of two indepent countries: Israel and Palestine. The situtation at the moment is unbearable.

And the made up country-part and historic precedents: at some time in history always was a nation constructed. So every nation is disputable from a historic standpoint.

Oh I agree with all of that, except the last part.

The large difference currently is that Palestine isn't a nation.  Other nations existence are less disputable because they are currently nations.

An "flipped" example would be something like Kosovo.  Which was disputable as a nation, then became one, and now it a nation.  This is slightly different since more or less Palestine is more of a "no mans land" then it is a part of Israel, but it's closer then compaing Palestine to say Greece, later Kosvo or even something like South Ossetia.


A two state solution is needed, but realistically, all that happens from a delay and from keeping their negotations private is a loss of Palestinian land, and a gain in Israeli land.  Even if the US backs off all support and a UN solution is implemented you can be sure that anywhere Israel has a significant population in will be left with israel.

What Palestine needs to do is make a public "Sweetheart" deal like in the Palestine papers and say "this is our deal, it's completely onesided against us, but we just want peace."   Israel would more or less be pressured to accept by everyone.

However they CAN'T do that because there people have generally been lied to about what a deal would look like and that they were fairly even bargaining partners.  Thoughts that the Palestine papers might be true was enough to force negotiatior resignations.

As it stands, it's a no win situation... because Hamas gains political power from the status quo, and Fatah would lose power if they made a deal that could actually get done or revealed just how weak their barganning plan is.


The current plan seems to be "Let our people suffer while us polticians are mostly fine removed from their struggles, and wait for the international community to bail us out."   When it SHOULD be "Let's take a hit and be removed from power and be hated by our countrymen, but get our people in a position where their economy can grow and don't suffer."

It's all political cowardness.

That's why i've been saying for a long time that it's Israel that needs to be the one to man up and double down. Boot the illegal settlers and then agree to a land-swap on the remaining settlements. The only real negative pressure against Israel is the rocket attacks from Gaza, however, which are more or less a non-issue, and thus why Israel won't back down and will continue strangling Palestine until there is a second Intifada, which they'll use as an excuse to deport them all.

I would agree with that if it wasn't for the fact that they already did double down once before with the unilateral withdrawl.   It hadn't worked, and things have only gotten more corrosive since.

With the way Palestinian political culture is, Israel double downing would likely be seen as the rocket attacks and other terrorist attacks WORKING and a reason to increase them.  Just like what happened during the unilateral withdrawl.

We've been over this ground before, i feel. My thought on the matter is that the West Bankers would learn from Gaza experience, and see that a terroristic response to an Israeli good-faith gesture would simply worsen their condition. Political leadership in the West Bank would make a more responsible approach and move towards recognized statehood, and then the independent, Fatah-run West Bank could "petition" Israel to go in and weed out Hamas with West Bank troops moving in to occupy and integrate the Gaza Strip afterwards

Hamas i feel has been effectively isolated in that one slot, but if things continue as they are, the Hamas alternative will become much more viable in the West Bank and soon enough we'll be back to a situation where there'll be no chance for peace until someone's been booted out altogether.

Never been over that part before.  I'd be for a similar plan.  Such a plan being, solve West Bank first, then handle gaza... with public recognition on both sides that Gaza is currently being left off the table negotiation wise.

Do it any other way however  and Gaza will themselves increase the attacks, seeing the double down as there victory since both territories are "one nation."

Honestly, i'd be more of a fan of a three state solution all together.  Seems like even after an agreement is reached having a nation divided in half with a nation in the middle who they'd been at "war" with for decades seems unworkable.


Not sure exactly how passage between the two terrtories would work.  Afterall even after the agreement there will be plenty of people trying to get into Israel, and likely some angry israelis looking for easy retribution as well.