Israel-Palestine Conflict

[Ronnie]

I think it's time to revive this topic, as coalition talks are going on, and thus, the next Knesset will be underway soon enough.  The next few years, in my view, will be a critical point in time for the conflict, as the question of whether the two-state solution is truly tenable will become clearer than ever.  If not, the one state reality may become permanent.

I think this thread can be relatively open-ended, but here are two questions to guide discussion:

1. What should be done to solve the conflict?
2. Based on the facts on the ground, what do you think will happen?

[MalaspinaGold]

Stop.

[Ronnie]

Stop.

Did I violate some rule?  I don't get it.

[MalaspinaGold]

A) These discussions don't work, for several very obvious reasons.
B) For actual discussion of Israeli politics, there is the Israel General Discussion thread, which hasn't been posted in for a while because of the election, when discussion was transferred to the Israeli Election Thread. If we HAVE to talk about Israeli politics, do it there; that's where the least rabble-rousing happens anyway.
C) see A

[Ronnie]

A) Of course, this is an incredibly polarizing subject, but I don't see why that means we can't be civil.
B) I didn't intend for this thread to be about internal Israeli politics, which is what the general discussion thread is about.

Anyway, the mods can decide on this one.  I won't push it if it's taboo.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I don't think it is solvable, at least not without another major war between Israel and its neighbors that forces Israel to consider changing its current course.  I just don't see such a war happening anytime soon.  Egypt, Jordan, and Syria all have bigger worries than preparing for a potential war with the Zionist Crusaders Estreladers. It's not that anyone on any side is happy with the current situation, but no one has any incentive to do anything different than what they are doing now unilaterally, and no side trusts the other enough to try something jointly, even if potentially it would be acceptable to all.

[MalaspinaGold]

Well, a few things:
This board is generally populated by two types of threads:
Long-running threads dedicated to various countries/regions, that are continually updated with actual developments. Examples include UK General Discussion II,  The Great Nordic Thread, and France General Discussion II: Living Under Marxism.

Short-lived "wildcat threads" dedicated to a single news article/topic/obsession. Examples include the German Wings one, the one about the weird mayor from Romania, and the one about Qatar being terrible.

A thread asking people their opinion really belongs in Individual Politics. Unfortunately, there's all sorts of creepy crawlies there that, once they bite, can easily send a thread on this topic into the depths of unreadability. See: "Israeli General Election 1949".

The best option is probably to hijack the US-Israeli Relations after the Elections thread. That one didn't turn out completely terribly.

[politicus]

Political debate is another option, better than IP.

[swl]

There are also threads here similar to this one, such as "Crisis in Ukraine" or "Civil war in Syria" (just saying).

[Hnv1]

[Ronnie]

I just came across an article that predicts a very grim -- and convincing -- future for the conflict.  I encourage anyone who is interested to read it in its entirety:

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/13/8390387/israel-dark-future

[Hnv1]

I just came across an article that predicts a very grim -- and convincing -- future for the conflict.  I encourage anyone who is interested to read it in its entirety:

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/13/8390387/israel-dark-future

You know as a far-lefty (even in non-Israel measurements) I must say this prediction are retro-70s. that was exactly what Shelly Camp and so raved in the 70s and that public debated escalated in the 80s. But honestly I fail to see how it matters to the majority of Israelis, the one from Likud rightwards don't give a toss on democracy, and the ones from Labour to Likud are perfectly fine with a strong ethnic quasi-democracy, heck even most of Meretz argue for a Palestinian state on the sake of demographics.

But to make you feel better we weren't the finest of democracies even before  67

[danny]

I just came across an article that predicts a very grim -- and convincing -- future for the conflict.  I encourage anyone who is interested to read it in its entirety:

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/13/8390387/israel-dark-future

A silly article that simply brings a bunch of far leftists, to say how horrible things are and will be. Israel acts far more democratically now than during the pre-67 Mapai days.

[MalaspinaGold]

I just came across an article that predicts a very grim -- and convincing -- future for the conflict.  I encourage anyone who is interested to read it in its entirety:

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/13/8390387/israel-dark-future

A silly article that simply brings a bunch of far leftists, to say how horrible things are and will be. Israel acts far more democratically now than during the pre-67 Mapai days.

That's not saying much...

[danny]

I just came across an article that predicts a very grim -- and convincing -- future for the conflict.  I encourage anyone who is interested to read it in its entirety:

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/13/8390387/israel-dark-future

A silly article that simply brings a bunch of far leftists, to say how horrible things are and will be. Israel acts far more democratically now than during the pre-67 Mapai days.

That's not saying much...

It wasn't the worst. But more importantly, it was a response to the article that was pushing a bullsh**t narrative that the 67 war as the beginning of the end of Israeli democracy, and that it had some sort of debilitating affect on Israel.

[Famous Mortimer]

67 most certainly sowed the seeds of Israel's future demographic crisis. It's basically a truism accepted by most commentators in the West and I'm really hard pressed to see how it's wrong. Seems like the Israelis are just arguing it's not a problem because it hasn't descended into full scale ethnic cleansing.

Regardless, obviously the article is very much doom and gloom, assuming the worst will happen at every juncture. It's still pretty close to the mark though, just very pessimistic.

There's a chance the ultra-Orthodox birthrate will save the Jewish majority so Israel has that going for them. Then again, 40% of the population you govern not having rights isn't that much better than 51% not having rights. It would still be a huge moral and PR problem, just not as dramatic.

Also, I think it's unlikely Israeli will annex the West Bank without extending citizenship to people living there. Obviously some people want it to happen but it's just not politically realistic (from the global point of view) in the modern age.

[danny]

Regardless of what you think regarding the West Bank Palestinians, this article was saying that the occupation has caused Israel to become less democratic towards its own citizens, and this is my main objection.

[Famous Mortimer]

Okay, that I get.

I don't think it's necessarily talking about citizens' actual rights though. It's more talking about how it's changed citizens' outlook about the concept of democracy. I think it's a valid point.

Then there's another debate about whether ethnocentric, anti-democratic ideals where always there, it's just that the West and some Israelis were able to more easily ignore them in the past.

This is all illustrated by the nation-state law, which I think the article is very reasonable about. It admits that it doesn't actually change people's rights in any concrete way. It's symbolic though.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Also, I think it's unlikely Israel will annex the West Bank without extending citizenship to people living there. Obviously some people want it to happen but it's just not politically realistic (from the global point of view) in the modern age.

Israel already has de facto annexed the West Bank, tho I agree they won't annex de jure so they can continue to pay lip service to the two state solution that won't happen in my lifetime.

[ag]

Also, I think it's unlikely Israel will annex the West Bank without extending citizenship to people living there. Obviously some people want it to happen but it's just not politically realistic (from the global point of view) in the modern age.

Israel already has de facto annexed the West Bank, tho I agree they won't annex de jure so they can continue to pay lip service to the two state solution that won't happen in my lifetime.

And somthat they do not have to extend citizenship...

Who said Transkei?

[MalaspinaGold]

Also, I think it's unlikely Israel will annex the West Bank without extending citizenship to people living there. Obviously some people want it to happen but it's just not politically realistic (from the global point of view) in the modern age.

Israel already has de facto annexed the West Bank, tho I agree they won't annex de jure so they can continue to pay lip service to the two state solution that won't happen in my lifetime.

This isn't what anyone would consider real annexation, for reasons ag laid out.

[danny]

Okay, that I get.

I don't think it's necessarily talking about citizens' actual rights though. It's more talking about how it's changed citizens' outlook about the concept of democracy. I think it's a valid point.

Then there's another debate about whether ethnocentric, anti-democratic ideals where always there, it's just that the West and some Israelis were able to more easily ignore them in the past.

This is all illustrated by the nation-state law, which I think the article is very reasonable about. It admits that it doesn't actually change people's rights in any concrete way. It's symbolic though.

The nation state law is a good example of the silliness of the article. The article itself admits that it won't make a great difference, and the only objection is with the symbolism of declaring Israel a Jewish state, as if this is somehow new rather than the very reason the country was founded in the first place.

 This is being done in the context of an article trying to show how things are getting worse in the way it starts by approvingly referring to Ben Gurion and leading to the supposedly worse present. But it was under Ben Gurion's leadership, and before the occupation, that the Arabs were under military rule and clearly had far less rights than they do now. It would be far more accurate for the article to go the opposite way and write about how much progress Arabs have made since Israel's early days to the present.

[Ronnie]

Does anyone think that Obama might actually approve (or not block) Palestine's statehood bid the next time it comes up for a vote in the UN Security Council, or has it just been empty rhetoric / political posturing?

[Hnv1]

Okay, that I get.

I don't think it's necessarily talking about citizens' actual rights though. It's more talking about how it's changed citizens' outlook about the concept of democracy. I think it's a valid point.

Then there's another debate about whether ethnocentric, anti-democratic ideals where always there, it's just that the West and some Israelis were able to more easily ignore them in the past.

This is all illustrated by the nation-state law, which I think the article is very reasonable about. It admits that it doesn't actually change people's rights in any concrete way. It's symbolic though.

The nation state law is a good example of the silliness of the article. The article itself admits that it won't make a great difference, and the only objection is with the symbolism of declaring Israel a Jewish state, as if this is somehow new rather than the very reason the country was founded in the first place.

 This is being done in the context of an article trying to show how things are getting worse in the way it starts by approvingly referring to Ben Gurion and leading to the supposedly worse present. But it was under Ben Gurion's leadership, and before the occupation, that the Arabs were under military rule and clearly had far less rights than they do now. It would be far more accurate for the article to go the opposite way and write about how much progress Arabs have made since Israel's early days to the present.

I have to agree. The nation state law is bad symbolically but legally it has nothing to it (it might even cause the exact opposite of what they intend)

[Dan the Roman]

Does anyone think that Obama might actually approve (or not block) Palestine's statehood bid the next time it comes up for a vote in the UN Security Council, or has it just been empty rhetoric / political posturing?

In terms of long-term US policy, if Obama genuinely wants to make it less Pro-Israel he needs to build a political consensus around doing so by moving the center ground, something he has arguably done with some help from Netanyahu. But however much the ground may have shifted to some degree, it has not shifted anywhere near enough for an open break to Israel to be acceptable to any major constituency in the US, and if Obama were to do so he would risk undoing whatever long-term movement he has achieved by making it incumbent on the next President, regardless of party, to actively reverse rather than scale back his policy. Hillary would either have to break openly with him, or be placed in a painful and difficult political position for which she would blame Obama and the Pro-Palestinian advisers around him, making her likely to be resentful of their policy once in office even if she had to walk a tightrope now. And it would effectively push Republicans into digging in deeper.

As much as it was an act of extreme pettiness for the 46 Republican Senators to write their letter on the Iran deal, there is a meaningful point that while international agreements are in theory binding, but part of that is because the individuals signing them theoretically speak for their countries and political classes as a whole. Any action Obama were to take in support of Palestine's statehood bid would be an act of personal pique with not just Israel, but American policy generally, and not of the United States congress, the United States public, or even for that matter the Democratic party. In a situation in which the US allowed such a motion to pass on a technicality, how important would it be if it were clear that not only did congress not support it, but that the next President, whether Democratic or Republican also did not consider it in anyway binding on them?

And ultimately it would do little to help the Palestinians. There is this myth that "world opinion" somehow matters. Well it dosen't really matter. As much as South Africa is a problematic example, the South African regime really didn't run into trouble until the United States threw it overboard and that came only after a veto-proof majority in both houses of congress came around to that position. Realistically, as long as Israel has the United States, it can also count on the tacit support of the UK and Eastern Europe, the mercenary interests of Russia/China, and the common interests of India along with  much of sub-saharan Africa. Is that an ideal situation? No but absent an alternative policy that does not endanger Israeli survival it will do just fine indefinitely.

Israelis might not have done themselves any favor lately, but this is a really bad time for the Palestinians globally. They are an Arab Islamic community whose major face is a violent Islamic movement in a region where its backers and affiliates are a security threat to every major government, and when popular sentiment in almost the entire non-Islamic world does not look upon violent Muslim resistance movements particularly favorably. Elite opinion may be turning on them, but elite opinion also feels that what is going on with refugees in the Mediterranean is a crime against humanity. Public opinion among actual voters however is a very different thing.