This is my observation as well after tracking the conflict for 15 years. In addition to those points, I recall Israel blocking international humanitarian aid caravans and ships. One ship was boarded illegally by Israeli commandos within international waters. Based on that map, I wonder how Palestinians make it to a sea port? Maybe it's not reflected in the southern Palestine territory on that map?

at the bolded specifically it may not be politically feasible, but would any deal at all be feasible in this conflict? is there any sweetheart pie in the sky deal Palestine is going to agree to to bring a true end to the conflict? the only thing we have in the past is ceasefires that not even all of the palestinians nor all of the israelis honor.

i think at this point with the amount of killing Israel does for every 1 killing the Palestinians do, its more about offering a deal that's workable from a world perspective, rather than the palestinian perspective. which i think is too distrustful to ever really bring an end to the conflict. the only solution i see is evacuation, even the 2 state solutions seem like short term fixes that are just powder kegs waiting to blow once a mosque or synagogue is attacked., and it invariably will be.

im not saying im for the Kushner plan, just commenting on the quagmire this is.

of course there is a 'deal' they would accept right now, but that's one the rest of the world (me including) would strongly reject. the main issue with this 'plan' is that it's not even remotely based on realistic political considerations, or negotiations open to all concerned parties, and that it's coming from PROVEN (through action) bad faith actors regarding this matter. how anyone could genuinely expect this to succeed is truly beyond me.

at this point, i think it would be incredibly difficult for trump's administration to host truly open and good faith negotiations, after all the damage it has done (lasting peace is significanly more unlikely now than it was before he got involved) - but if it genuinely wanted to, the first step would be to demonstrate seriousness through ACTION, rather than publicly presenting a little distraction, that directly goes against some of the core demands of the palestinians, legitimising illegally and violently acquired territory, and then pretending you're genuinely trying to solve the issue - that's outright laughable.

the first step would be genuine efforts to maintain a lasting ceasefire (based on a true desire to de-escalate, and not just the typical blame game, where the first radical individual's actions are used as an excuse to continue the brutal oppression of millions, while at the same time claiming the moral high ground), that THEN could turn into more concrete negotiations in a cooled down political environment. you know when support for radical ideas and groups in palestine was the lowest? during the longer ceasefires.

to achieve that, it would be required to hold both sides accountable:

- not resorting to the knee-jerk "israel is only 'defending' itself against mysteriously and unreasonably radical aggressors" excuse to justify the indiscriminate executing, arresting, and torturing of countless civilians
- ceasing transgressions and escalations based on political calculations (i'm really too lazy to type that all out again, but since i sense a genuine interest, i would suggest you read a bit into the history of hamas, and how israel repeatedly undertook calculated actions that strenthened radicals in palestine to then turn around and claim peace is out of the question as long as they exist)
- the illegal expansion into, and the consolidation of stolen land would also have to stop immediately

that might seem like a pretty one-sided list, but we ALWAYS (and justifiably ofc) point out that radicals who categorically deny israel's right to exist, or kill innocent civilians are not acceptable, or reasonable negotiating partners, and that remains true of course - but we rarely talk about WHY they exist in the first place, or hold the other side (which is DE FACTO denying palestine's right to exist) to the same standard. just because it's dressed up in modern military equipment and a western style bureaucracy, just because it's uncritically backed by one of the most powerful countries in the world, violence does not magically become legitimate.

even the PATH to meaningful negotiations is long and politically unattractive for various different reasons (radicals on all sides: muslim extremists recruiting violence, evangelical nutjobs pulling strings, israeli hardliners not giving an inch), but if a lasting peace is your goal, i don't see a way around bringing all parties to the table.
if you want to be more cynical (or call it 'realistic') and outright dictate terms (which will ALWAYS result in both sides' radicals holding grudges for perceived and real injustices, and ultimately acting upon them), the terms would still have to be much harsher for israel than what kushner's rejected bachelor thesis in international politics lays out, to even be close to 'fair' (or rather equally unfair) to both sides - especially if you take into account the decades of occupation and suffering.

i dont disagree in a general sense, but would add that palestine has a long pattern of history of not being reasonable or logical in their actions. yes they do fire on Israel and protest due to continued expansions of settlements. but they also know they incur about a 100 to 1 death count from any attacks. they're willing to sacrifice 100 of their own just to take out 1 of the other side. this screams to me that they want a never ending war, or at the least that they're unwilling to end the conflict at any cost until Israel is either gone or fully hated by the rest of the world.

it's like MLK telling people to peacefully protest so that the world would see dogs and firehoses used on people, and come around. only they're incurring casualties instead of injuries, and they're violent and not peaceful in provoking these casualties.

i think even if Palestine was allowed to broker their own deal for ALL historical settlements to be returned to them and given a 2 state solution it would only be a matter of a decade or so before they are asking for more and the conflict is restarted.

i just dont see a potential end of this with both parties remaining in the region, let alone in a single territory. it will just never end no matter the deals, concessions, etc.

let me explore that thought a little further: why do you think "they" (who, all palestinians?!) want a 'never ending war'? i already acknowledged that fundamentalists who deny israel's right to exist are unacceptable, but unlike you i don't think that's just their 'nature' or the core of their 'culture', i think it's the direct result of radicalisation as a response to being held in what effectively is an open air prison with ever encroaching walls. we have to distinguish between radicalised mistreated individuals shouting that, and the other side actually DOING that for decades.
of course that is 'irrational' if you want to maximise the well-being of your people, but it's entirely understandable where it comes from, and well within israel's power to minimise those forces - not just logically but also historically proven. you might as well argue that for the french resistance it was 'irrational' to fight back against the nazis - fewer of them would have died had they not done that.

the palestinians as a whole have repeatedly engaged in good faith attempts to de-escalate and negotiate long term solutions, and were repeatedly fucked over by their infinitely more powerful counter-part, out of political, religious, or simply personal revenge motives. so claiming that THEY are the ones who would ultimately undermine a lasting peace, arguing based on narratives and preconceived notions deriving from misrepresentations of this conflict in our media and politics, while largely ignoring the history of this conflict, is not particularly convincing.

i dont think that at all, just like i dont think americans support the wars that warhawk politicians get them into, let alone the cost in money or lives.

like i said "they", as in enough of the leadership who sanction such attacks, are willing to sacrifice 100 of their own. just like HRC and her ilk are willing to sacrifice plenty of american lives for the govt's interest.

i generally dont make gross over-generalizations. and i know where the power of decision making on both sides of the conflict truly resides. who gains, who loses, etc.

again, history has proven repeatedly that "they" are the weakest, "they" have the least support, when israel was the least radical as well - it's almost like violence breeds violence. israel is the party that de facto decides when there's peace and when there is not, and i listed some of the motivations for those decisions in my previous post, if you want a tl;dr of previously failed ceasefires.

so how do you then come to your conclusion that even in the best case scenario it would be the palestinians who would re-ignite the conflict, when we have decades of proof documenting illegal occupation, expropriation, imprisonment, and disproportionate killings committed by the OTHER side? what do you base that on?

This post was edited by fender on Jan 30 2020 01:22pm

i dont think that. i said before that an attack on a mosque OR synagogue could reignite the ceasefire. so it could be either, or both, etc.

but as Palestine are the ones who have been whipped up and down the block for about a century i think it stands to reason they're more distrustful of the Israeli's as the Israeli's are of them. i would compare it to the Native American vs US Govt relationships; broken treaties, forced resettlement, high disparity of killcounts, etc. Natives will never, ever, for any reason, trust the US govt. ever again, there's too many bodies piled up for them to get hogwashed. they might play within the rules set out, they might not attack the US anymore, etc. but they'll never trust them at all. Whereas the US govt doesnt trust the natives much either, but having a monopoly on force their distrust doesnt factor in as much.

i know, i know, bothsidesism from a centrist. how original. but really what im saying can be summed up thusly: while both sides have a good reason not to trust each other, one side clearly has more reason to be mistrustful, having gotten the shorter end of the stick repeatedly. even in the scenario of a dream deal for Palestine i would still expect Israel to encroach and/or resume illegal settlements. i just think the Palestinians might be more apt to throw rocks or rockets post "peace deal".

This is really the only reasonable way to view the circumstances.

sure sounded like it though when you posted:



__________________________



have they reason to be distrustful? absolutely, but so does israel - i am by no means suggesting that all palestinians are pure and the ONLY reason any palestinian would ever attack an israeli is a justified uprising against illegal oppression. amongst their leaders you will also find just selfish and nefarious actors, exploiting the situation for their own personal, political, or ideological benefit - but again, there are reasons for people to become like that, and history has shown that support for those radicals dwindles relatively fast (by political standards) when there is noticeable relief to the harsh living conditions in palestinian territories. generally speaking, they are (somewhat out of necessity) much less ideologically stubborn or radical (as a whole people that is) than simplistic characterisations of this conflict, often perpetuated by religious hardliners on the other side, would have us believe.

that said, i would absolutely agree with your last point, but i specifically addressed that previously, when i referenced the 'blame game': yes, the decentralised structure and nature of their resistance - in contrast to the very organised, bureaucratised, militarised, and in many cases much less graphical forms of violence (like 'just building a couple of houses or protective walls') from the other side - makes singular incidents of violence almost unavoidable, and easy to demonise (especially for people not too familiar with the matter) - but that should be taken into account while evaluating the seriousness of peace efforts from both sides. don't get me wrong, that's not supposed to justify such incidents, or relieve palestinian authorities from their responsibility to do whatever they can to prevent that, but it's not like we don't have common sense ways to judge if there are genuine efforts made or not. suggesting that isolated violent incidents prove a lack of good faith from a whole people, like it was done in the past, is simply dishonest.

and no, i would not at all describe your post as lazy bothsidesism, as you're making relevant distinctions to explain your argument, and to me that is logically coherent reasoning. what i am saying is that i simply don't subscribe to the 'violence is only what we can easily present like it on tv', and 'if one person does it, that demonstrates millions of people don't want peace' narratives that tend to dominate discussions and reporting on this particular issue - and no, i am not suggesting that YOU do, at least not based on your last post.