Is this a valid comparison?

[Sumner 1868]

Israel can't come to resolution on the status of the West Bank and Gaza until they have a partner who can accept a two-state solution.  They've never had that so the Palestinian people continue to suffer, but more at the hands of their own leadership's intransigence and violence than the policies of Israel.  So, that's a huge moral difference right there.  The suffering of the Palestinian people is not at the whim of Israel according to some horrible racist policy.  It's the unfortunate result of war and dislocation, not instigated by Israel, and the festering status quo which would require mutual good faith effort at peace.

1) The Israeli army was quite active in emptying a lot of conquered territory of Palestinians in 1948 - this is well documented by Israeli historians.

I was talking about the West Bank in that sentence.  But, if we're talking about 1948, the point holds to an extent.  Israel did not start the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.  It's true there were attacks on Arab civilians and forced population transfers, sure.  That's all terrible.  But, many Arabs were forced to flee by Arab armies and simply left for their own safety. 

2) PLO did accept a two state solution by recognizing Israel in 1988. The hope of a two state solution was behind the Oslo-process.

When Gallup polled the question in 2013 70% of Palestinians in the West Bank and 48% of Palestinians in Gaza supported "an independent Palestinian state together with the state of Israel".

They accepted the idea in theory, they still have never negotiated in good-faith towards that goal, actually contemplating accepting a two-state solution.  Look at what happened at Camp David in 2000.  The Palestinians walked away from a generous offer and launched the second intifada.  

Barak's lousy offer? Basically accepting that they were too be an Israeli colony with certain devolution? It's no wonder Arafat said no.

Really, except for a brief moment in the mid nineties, the Israeli's have never really wanted to negotiate peace. They are too proud for peace because they only know war.

[bedstuy]

What people point to, I guess, is the settlements and the fact that non-Israeli citizens in the West Bank and Gaza don't get to vote and enjoy the benefits of Israeli citizenship.  Does any country allow non-citizens to vote or give them the benefits of citizenship?  Not that I'm aware of.  So, is every country akin to apartheid South Africa then?

They should not be recognized as citizens because they are not already recognized as citizens? This is question-begging absurdity. If we accept the logic of this argument, then any kind of exclusion is justified as long as members of the excluded group are denied citizenship.

You need to clarify your argument. 

Do you think...

1.  Military occupation of territory outside your national borders is by definition illegal.
2.  It is wrong for a country to distinguish between citizens and foreign nationals.
3.  All Palestinians are citizens of Israel, maybe not under Israel law, but under international law or some general principal that is generally applied around the world.

Because, if you're going to criticize Israel, you can't just say, Palestinians have a raw deal.  You have to articulate an international law or customary legal norm that Israel has violated. 

[politicus]

Camp David 2000 was an offer of 91% of the West Bank, with Israel annexing areas that would split the West Bank into three blocs, and no real sovereignty of East Jeruslaem ("custodianship" of the Temple Mount etc.) + no right of return for refugees. It would have been great if the Palestinians had taken it, and may be the best offer they will ever get, but it was not a pre-1967 borders solution. They were by all accounts prepared to accept a full pre-1967 borders two state solution incl. a bit of land swaps.

What do you mean pre-1967 borders two state solution?  

Two states with Israeli borders as they were prior to the Six-Day War.

[bedstuy]

What people point to, I guess, is the settlements and the fact that non-Israeli citizens in the West Bank and Gaza don't get to vote and enjoy the benefits of Israeli citizenship.  Does any country allow non-citizens to vote or give them the benefits of citizenship?  Not that I'm aware of.  So, is every country akin to apartheid South Africa then?

They should not be recognized as citizens because they are not already recognized as citizens? This is question-begging absurdity. If we accept the logic of this argument, then any kind of exclusion is justified as long as members of the excluded group are denied citizenship.

You need to clarify your argument. 

Do you think...

1.  Military occupation of territory outside your national borders is by definition illegal.
2.  It is wrong for a country to distinguish between citizens and foreign nationals.
3.  All Palestinians are citizens of Israel, maybe not under Israel law, but under international law or some general principal that is generally applied around the world.

Because, if you're going to criticize Israel, you can't just say, Palestinians have a raw deal.  You have to articulate an international law or customary legal norm that Israel has violated. 

People living in under the long-term administration of a liberal democracy ought to be accorded the full civil and political rights of citizens. If it is impossible for Palestine to function as an independent state because of geographic factors - for example, the lack of compactness and poor inter-connectivity that are so glaring on maps of its territory - then it follows from this principle that the the people who live on that territory should be treated as citizens of Israel.

That's not a principle of international law, it's kind of just a sui generis rule that only applies to Israel then?  You're also claiming that the Palestinian territories as a whole were annexed by Israel.  That is simply not factual.  Why does it fall upon Israel to make Palestinians who live in land administered by the Palestinian Authority and don't want to be Israel citizens, Israeli citizens.  They clearly don't want to be annexed into Israel, even if you might think that's what's best for them.   

That's a major flaw in these criticisms of Israel, it's as if Israel can snap their fingers and create a two-state solution.  Palestinians have suffered a ton, I agree.  Their land was lost in a war with Israel and annexed by Jordan, who also lost it in a war with Israel.  And, they never actually had a country in the first place.  So, nobody envies the Palestinians.  But, if you're judging Israel, you have to look at what Israel has done, instead of expecting Israel to act as custodian of Palestinians.

Camp David 2000 was an offer of 91% of the West Bank, with Israel annexing areas that would split the West Bank into three blocs, and no real sovereignty of East Jeruslaem ("custodianship" of the Temple Mount etc.) + no right of return for refugees. It would have been great if the Palestinians had taken it, and may be the best offer they will ever get, but it was not a pre-1967 borders solution. They were by all accounts prepared to accept a full pre-1967 borders two state solution incl. a bit of land swaps.

What do you mean pre-1967 borders two state solution? 

Two states with Israeli borders as they were prior to the Six-Day War.

That isn't a workable border anymore because hundreds of thousands of Israelis live in areas that were not part of Israel in 1967.  That's one of the bad things about waiting 50 years to negotiate a dispute, in the meantime facts on the ground can change. 

[politicus]

Camp David 2000 was an offer of 91% of the West Bank, with Israel annexing areas that would split the West Bank into three blocs, and no real sovereignty of East Jerusalem ("custodianship" of the Temple Mount etc.) + no right of return for refugees. It would have been great if the Palestinians had taken it, and may be the best offer they will ever get, but it was not a pre-1967 borders solution. They were by all accounts prepared to accept a full pre-1967 borders two state solution incl. a bit of land swaps.

What do you mean pre-1967 borders two state solution? 

Two states with Israeli borders as they were prior to the Six-Day War.

That isn't a workable border anymore because hundreds of thousands of Israelis live in areas that were not part of Israel in 1967.  That's one of the bad things about waiting 50 years to negotiate a dispute, in the meantime facts on the ground can change. 

Well, the Palestinian POV is naturally that Israel got 4/5 of Palestine in 1948 and that giving away one more inch of the last 1/5 is unacceptable. You can't really blame them for that..

Anyway, the issue was whether the Palestinians have accepted a two state solution and they have - just one that requires the removal of a quarter of a million Israeli settlers or so.

[bedstuy]

Camp David 2000 was an offer of 91% of the West Bank, with Israel annexing areas that would split the West Bank into three blocs, and no real sovereignty of East Jerusalem ("custodianship" of the Temple Mount etc.) + no right of return for refugees. It would have been great if the Palestinians had taken it, and may be the best offer they will ever get, but it was not a pre-1967 borders solution. They were by all accounts prepared to accept a full pre-1967 borders two state solution incl. a bit of land swaps.

What do you mean pre-1967 borders two state solution? 

Two states with Israeli borders as they were prior to the Six-Day War.

That isn't a workable border anymore because hundreds of thousands of Israelis live in areas that were not part of Israel in 1967.  That's one of the bad things about waiting 50 years to negotiate a dispute, in the meantime facts on the ground can change. 

Well, the Palestinian POV is naturally that Israel got 4/5 of Palestine in 1948 and that giving away one more inch of the last 1/5 is unacceptable. You can't really blame them for that..

Anyway, the issue was whether the Palestinians have accepted a two state solution and they have - just one that requires the removal of a quarter of a million Israeli settlers or so.

It's pretty easy to agree to peace under terms you know that no Israeli government could ever accept.  To me, that's just trying to get the public relations coup with no serious eye to a two-state solution. 

So, I hope they're happy with that status quo then.

[politicus]

Camp David 2000 was an offer of 91% of the West Bank, with Israel annexing areas that would split the West Bank into three blocs, and no real sovereignty of East Jerusalem ("custodianship" of the Temple Mount etc.) + no right of return for refugees. It would have been great if the Palestinians had taken it, and may be the best offer they will ever get, but it was not a pre-1967 borders solution. They were by all accounts prepared to accept a full pre-1967 borders two state solution incl. a bit of land swaps.

What do you mean pre-1967 borders two state solution?  

Two states with Israeli borders as they were prior to the Six-Day War.

That isn't a workable border anymore because hundreds of thousands of Israelis live in areas that were not part of Israel in 1967.  That's one of the bad things about waiting 50 years to negotiate a dispute, in the meantime facts on the ground can change.  

Well, the Palestinian POV is naturally that Israel got 4/5 of Palestine in 1948 and that giving away one more inch of the last 1/5 is unacceptable. You can't really blame them for that..

Anyway, the issue was whether the Palestinians have accepted a two state solution and they have - just one that requires the removal of a quarter of a million Israeli settlers or so.

It's pretty easy to agree to peace under terms you know that no Israeli government could ever accept.  To me, that's just trying to get the public relations coup with no serious eye to a two-state solution.  

So, I hope they're happy with that status quo then.

Well, if you look at the map there is no way you can establish a Palestinian state (other than a Gaza "city-state") without massive withdrawal.

[bedstuy]

Now, there's a ridiculous map.  If we're just going to blatantly make up history from whole cloth, there's no point in arguing.

[bedstuy]

It's sui generis because you're not referring to any existing international law or norms.  You're saying, I don't like the status quo so it's bad.  Listen, nobody likes the status quo.  Obviously, it's bad, but that's not the fault of Israel, for the most part. 

What exactly is Israel supposed to do anyway?

[Lurker]

Camp David 2000 was an offer of 91% of the West Bank, with Israel annexing areas that would split the West Bank into three blocs, and no real sovereignty of East Jerusalem ("custodianship" of the Temple Mount etc.) + no right of return for refugees. It would have been great if the Palestinians had taken it, and may be the best offer they will ever get, but it was not a pre-1967 borders solution. They were by all accounts prepared to accept a full pre-1967 borders two state solution incl. a bit of land swaps.

What do you mean pre-1967 borders two state solution? 

Two states with Israeli borders as they were prior to the Six-Day War.

That isn't a workable border anymore because hundreds of thousands of Israelis live in areas that were not part of Israel in 1967.  That's one of the bad things about waiting 50 years to negotiate a dispute, in the meantime facts on the ground can change. 

Well, the Palestinian POV is naturally that Israel got 4/5 of Palestine in 1948 and that giving away one more inch of the last 1/5 is unacceptable. You can't really blame them for that..

Anyway, the issue was whether the Palestinians have accepted a two state solution and they have - just one that requires the removal of a quarter of a million Israeli settlers or so.

It's pretty easy to agree to peace under terms you know that no Israeli government could ever accept.  To me, that's just trying to get the public relations coup with no serious eye to a two-state solution. 

So, I hope they're happy with that status quo then.

The Israelis have done everything to make a two-state solution impossible, and the mere notion that they are serious about considering it is laughable - as evidenced by the constant settlement expansion, which has effectively killed off any chance for such a solution (if it ever were a possibility).

[politicus]

Repealing the discriminatory Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law and ending settlement building in the West Bank would be a good start.

That is the very basis for Israel as a Jewish state and any state has the right to select its immigrants.

[politicus]

Repealing the discriminatory Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law and ending settlement building in the West Bank would be a good start.

That is the very basis for Israel as a Jewish state and any state has the right to select its immigrants.

What do you mean by that?

Okay, hyperbole, but a key element in keeping a Jewish majority in Israel.

[bedstuy]

It's sui generis because you're not referring to any existing international law or norms.  You're saying, I don't like the status quo so it's bad.  Listen, nobody likes the status quo.  Obviously, it's bad, but that's not the fault of Israel, for the most part. 

What exactly is Israel supposed to do anyway?

Repealing the discriminatory Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law and ending settlement building in the West Bank would be a good start. But I'm sure that you have excuses for those, too.

I agree.  Israel is clearly enabling their religious crazies and fundamentally showing bad faith in their settlement policy.  They should stop and unilaterally abandon settlements as a sign of good faith.  If there's going to be peace, both sides have to be willing to make huge sacrifices and take risks.  Israel's right-wing government is taking things in a direction that's horrible and fundamentally unjust because it doesn't create any pathway to peace.  I hate where Netanyahu has taken Israel and I hate the settlers and Jewish religious fanatics on both sides.

All that said, I believe in standards and being truthful.  You have to judge other countries on basically the same set of international law and expectations.  You can't have one set of expectations for Israel and another for every other country.  And, just because you don't like a certain policy, that doesn't make that policy tantamount to apartheid, or tantamount to genocide.  And, just because a country is powerful or open to criticism in the media, that doesn't mean that you erase the history or create a revisionist narrative.  You should always try to tell the truth about what went on and be fair to both sides. 

[bedstuy]

It's sui generis because you're not referring to any existing international law or norms.  You're saying, I don't like the status quo so it's bad.  Listen, nobody likes the status quo.  Obviously, it's bad, but that's not the fault of Israel, for the most part. 

What exactly is Israel supposed to do anyway?

Repealing the discriminatory Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law and ending settlement building in the West Bank would be a good start. But I'm sure that you have excuses for those, too.

I agree.  Israel is clearly enabling their religious crazies and fundamentally showing bad faith in their settlement policy.  They should stop and unilaterally abandon settlements as a sign of good faith.  If there's going to be peace, both sides have to be willing to make huge sacrifices and take risks.  Israel's right-wing government is taking things in a direction that's horrible and fundamentally unjust because it doesn't create any pathway to peace.  I hate where Netanyahu has taken Israel and I hate the settlers and Jewish religious fanatics on both sides.

All that said, I believe in standards and being truthful.  You have to judge other countries on basically the same set of international law and expectations.  You can't have one set of expectations for Israel and another for every other country.  And, just because you don't like a certain policy, that doesn't make that policy tantamount to apartheid, or tantamount to genocide.  And, just because a country is powerful or open to criticism in the media, that doesn't mean that you erase the history or create a revisionist narrative.  You should always try to tell the truth about what went on and be fair to both sides.

I don't understand what I've said to merit the fit of rectitude and whataboutery in your second paragraph. If I have been inconsistent or inaccurate, call me out on the specific inconsistency rather than relying on vague allusions to some unspecified act of hypocrisy. Maybe you're just pontificating and not actually addressing me at all. If so, I don't appreciate being used as a foil and I certainly don't like the associations that come with your use of the vaguely impersonal second person singular pronoun.

If Israel's policies are exceptionally evil, in violation of international law, exceptionally unjust, entirely their fault and they are entirely in the wrong, we should be treating them like Iran or impose sanctions like we did against apartheid South Africa. 

If Israel's policies are completely legal under international law, not exceptionally bad in terms of brutality or fairness or human rights, and simply flawed in some ways, our policy towards Israel basically makes sense.

So, it matters that we don't condemn them out of proportion, inaccurate way. 

[Oak Hills]

Because, if you're going to criticize Israel, you can't just say, Palestinians have a raw deal.  You have to articulate an international law or customary legal norm that Israel has violated. 

So, let me get this straight: there has to be a legalistic basis for all criticism of a government?  You mean it's not sufficient to justify one's criticisms on moral grounds.  If that's not circular reasoning, I don't know what is.