Two-state process has been ‘a charade’ for two decades

Israel/Palestine
on 57 Comments

I have often called for American journalists to describe what is actually going on in the Palestinian territories so that Americans can understand that one government, Israel’s, controls the fate of all 13 million or so people living between the river and the sea. Well, here are two writers honestly dealing with the collapse of the two-state paradigm following the UN vote and Israel’s further expansion.

First, William Pfaff in the Chicago Tribune asks a question that no political leader here is touching now (and few liberal Zionists are, either).

What exactly is it that Israel intends to do with the Palestinians now in the territories that it has just opened for home construction for Jewish settlers, thereby extending its policy of occupying and annexing what are legally Palestinian lands?..

What do Prime Minister Netanyahu and his colleagues intend to do with the Palestinians? For the present, the latter are penned up in walled or barricaded enclosures on what they consider to be their own land, but the whole purpose of Israel’s national policy is to take that land away from them.

Moreover, left landless in ever-deteriorating conditions — and in a Greater Israel — the Palestinians would become apartheid victims robbed of hope. That would be a terrible inconvenience and an international disgrace, as well as an ethnic contradiction, in what Israeli patriots would expect to be seen as a triumphant All-Jewish State, the Israel of the Prophets.

…Perhaps the United States, the land of immigrants, would take the Palestinians in? One must ask Obama or congressional leaders. I would think, though, that the answer would be no. Europe already has more Muslim immigrants than it finds comfortable. But perhaps the Israelis could force them onto ships to go to Germany, which started all this?

It is a very serious question — what does Netanyahu think he is going to do with the Palestinians? There is an unthinkable solution. The better one would be for Israel, right now, to accept the two-state solution.

And in the “Two State Scam,” Mitchell Plitnick writes at Souciant that the two state solution was killed by indifference, because Israel had always worked to undermine the “peace process” with the settlement of Ma’ale Adumim.

the whole two-state process has been a charade to begin with: … bisecting the West Bank has been Israel’s plan for decades, and foreign leaders who looked at a map even once had to know this. In that case, the support for a peace process has always been about supporting a process, not about supporting peace….

To begin with, there’s no doubt that Israeli settlements in E-1 moot any real possibility of a viable Palestinian state in the West Bank. Ma’ale Adumim sits far out to the east, close to the Jordan River and forces anyone trying to drive from one side of E-1 to the other to go a long way around to avoid crossing into Israeli territory, if it should become fully part of Israel. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas called construction in E-1 a “red line” and you can see why…

The monkey wrench in the works of the two-state solution was in place more than a decade and a half before a two-state solution was even a serious consideration. Is this something the international community, which has been peddling the notion that a viable Palestinian state was a real possibility, wants its various citizens to know?

This is what Bibi is blowing the top off of, and it is at least as much the source of the anger being directed at him as the very real potential consequences of building in E-1. …

But it is important to recognize, once and for all, what Ma’ale Adumim is, and what the controversy over E-1 actually reveals. There has never been a realistic chance at a two-state solution and there can’t be one as long as it is based on a vision where Ma’ale Adumim is still an Israeli “neighborhood.” It is a colony, and one that was built for a specific purpose: to make sure, at first, that Israel would maintain control of all of Jerusalem and, later, that a viable Palestinian state on the West Bank was not a serious possibility.

Any two-state solution that includes Gaza (as any such solution that will be acceptable to any significant number of Palestinians must do) already has a contiguity problem that is quite challenging. The West Bank, though, must be a viable unit, and this realization has been rhetorically acknowledged by every government involved in any way in the “peace process.” Yet the presence of Ma’ale Adumim has never been acknowledged as an obstacle; on the contrary, it was virtually given to Israel on a guaranteed platter.

The E-1 controversy shines a light on what a sham the peace process has been for two decades…

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

57 Responses

  1. yourstruly
    December 9, 2012, 1:03 pm

    upon reading Robin Wright’s “After the revolution: The Arab Spring has given way to the hard realities of running countries”, op-ed, today’s LA Times -

    the same as everywhere else, the arab spring is down to the knitty-gritty over

    who rules
    the divvying up of the spoils
    the narrative?
    about seizing the present, never letting go the past & to hell with the future
    what about the people?
    “trust us cause we know what’s best for you”
    best actually being?
    where one equals one
    everyone’s in on whatever gets decided
    planned & brought to completion
    with those magical eighteen days in tahrir square?
    remembering
    so as not to get lost

    • yourstruly
      December 9, 2012, 2:22 pm

      with comment on LA Times’ writer Edmund Sanders “The party’s over for some in Gaza: Excitement over the cease-fire deal fades as reality sinks in that little has changed” -

      with a 67 yr palestinian father of eight whose food business had been reduced to rubble declaring “No one cares about us but God

      & from a hamas security officer at one of the re-dug tunnels – “Around here,” he said, “it’s all back to normal”

      for how long?
      until there’s unity
      where one equals one
      & everyone’s in on whatever gets decided
      planned & brought to completion
      palestine first?
      then everywhere else
      with those magical eighteen days in tahrir aquare?
      remembering
      so as not to get lost

  2. Nevada Ned
    December 9, 2012, 1:27 pm

    I recall early in the “peace process”, when US conventional opinion was that at long last, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict was on its way to solution. Liberals and conservatives fell for it.

    On the Left, James Weinstein of In These Times fell for it as well, and so did many other people.
    Three notable exceptions were Alexander Cockburn and Edward Said (both writing in The Nation) and Noam Chomsky.
    Edward Said pointed out that the “agreement” was a rehash of previous Israeli proposals. Said thought that the agreement was so bad that it would have been better not to have an agreement at all.
    Chomsky identified it as The Allon Plan (named for Yigal Allon, previous Israeli foreign minister). And I think it was Cockburn who emphasized that Israel never promised to get out of the West Bank, and never promised to obey international law, never promised to follow the UN resolutions, and never promised to return to the 1967 boundaries. The only real commitment that Israel made was to talk. Israel continued to seize more land while continuing “the peace process”.

    • Rudolph
      December 9, 2012, 10:34 pm

      While Rabin’s vision of a Palestinian “entity” was still a work-in-progress when he was assassinated, we will never know what might have been…
      Rabin knew one thing very clearly: There is a real cost to peace. Why Israel has been unable to produce a leader like Rabin is a sad reflection of Israeli society.
      Jews should remember that “In the mid-1990s, Dov Lior–the head of the West Bank’s rabbinical council–and other prominent rabbis implied that Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin’s willingness to cede land to the Palestinians made him a moser (traitor), a transgression they claimed was punishable by death. Emboldened, one of their disciples, Yigal Amir, murdered Rabin.” link to detailedpoliticalquizzes.wordpress.com

  3. American
    December 9, 2012, 2:02 pm

    Well,well…..maybe there is something peeking thru finally.

    And I say that about William Pfaff’s ‘bluntness’ in his writing…..no pc tiptoeing around, no bs to it.
    We need more bluntness, more edge, more calling a liars liars and hypocrites hypocrites—-no more weasley words…like ‘disputed territory’, etc.etc..
    Plitnick should alter his ……”support for a peace process has always been about supporting a process, not about supporting peace’… to read….. “support for the peace process has always been about supporting Israel’s theft of Palestine land”.
    Because the peace “processors’ have damn well known for decades that was the peace talk deal…they were f****** seeing the theft going on every day, month, year.

    • Rusty Pipes
      December 10, 2012, 9:23 pm

      or altered to “support for the peace process has always been about supporting Israel’s piece by piece process.”

  4. seanmcbride
    December 9, 2012, 2:27 pm

    Zionists, on the right and “left,” have never deviated an iota from their original plan to build Greater Israel.

    The Mideast peace process and the two-state solution, which have been under the control of “liberal Zionists” (that, closet Likudniks or Likud moles) under both Democratic and Republican regimes, were consciously and deliberately designed as a stalling tactic and con game from the very beginning.

    As soon as Barack Obama and Joe Biden revealed early in their first term that they might be serious about pursing the two-state solution, liberal Zionists like Aaron David Miller and billionaire Ronald Lauder, in cooperation with AIPAC and Democratic big donors, pulled the rug out from under them.

    No doubt Barack Obama is still trying to digest the full implications of the number that was done on him. By now he must realize that he can’t trust any liberal Zionist in the Democratic Party.

    • Rusty Pipes
      December 10, 2012, 9:31 pm

      Or after liberal Zionist orgs like J Street and APN told him they had his back in 2008 before the Cairo speech and then either softened or reversed their positions, maybe he’s feeling more like Charlie Brown tempted by Lucy’s football.

  5. seanmcbride
    December 9, 2012, 2:32 pm

    What exactly is it that Israel intends to do with the Palestinians now in the territories that it has just opened for home construction for Jewish settlers, thereby extending its policy of occupying and annexing what are legally Palestinian lands?

    Israel has three options for dealing with Palestinians living within Greater Israel: kill them, expel them or enslave them.

    From the Israeli standpoint, the best option is mass expulsion under the cover of a generalized war between the West and Islam (the Clash of Civilizations) — that is the scenario that neoconservatives have been developing for several decades now — and which received a major push forward when they were gifted with their New Pearl Harbor — 9/11 and the 9/11 anthrax attacks.

    • Annie Robbins
      December 9, 2012, 4:15 pm

      the best option is mass expulsion under the cover of a generalized war between the West and Islam (the Clash of Civilizations) — that is the scenario that neoconservatives have been developing for several decades now

      (my bold) i completely agree this looks like the agenda. the entire middle east could go up in flames are far as some people are concerned, as long as israel keeps expanding. and long after we’re all dead and gone our grandchildren could very well be having these same conversations about areas of jordan being justifiably annexed or not based on it being part of ‘historical ancient israel’. we can either deal with this now or pass it on for generations to come. someone has to say the buck stops here, or back there.

      • Kathleen
        December 9, 2012, 11:03 pm

        The U.S. and U.S. citizens will continually be a target for this injustice. This continued conflict and Israel’s continued defiance towards international laws and UN resolutions will continue to be a national security issue for the U.S.

    • eljay
      December 9, 2012, 4:33 pm

      >> From the Israeli standpoint, the best option is mass expulsion under the cover of a generalized war between the West and Islam …

      The only thing more distasteful than the harsh pragmatism of this assessment is the likelihood that Zio-supremacists – even “liberal” ones – will agree with it. Because, y’know, sometimes ethnic cleansing is just a “necessary evil”.

      And when it’s all over – when cleansing and killing are once again “currently not necessary” – they’ll dance and sing and “primarily celebrate”.

      (Sorry, Mooser, but I just couldn’t help myself.)

      • Mooser
        December 10, 2012, 3:56 pm

        (Sorry, Mooser, but I just couldn’t help myself.)”

        My contention, which you seem to be contesting, is that if the Palestinians are eliminated as any kind of a hindrance to Israeli plans, to put it brutally, destroyed as a people Israel, Zionists, will go into an orgy of mourning, recrimination, even attempts at Palestinian revival. In fact, you will be able to track the destruction of the Palestinians by the increase of those things.
        But I’ve never been attracted to Zionism, in fact, was pretty much repelled by it, so I tend to have a harsh, uncompromising attitude towards Israel and Zionists which may not be suitable for children.

      • eljay
        December 12, 2012, 7:32 am

        >> My contention, which you seem to be contesting, is that if the Palestinians are eliminated as any kind of a hindrance to Israeli plans … Zionists, will go into an orgy of mourning, recrimination, even attempts at Palestinian revival.

        Nope, I’m not contesting that at all. Hell, the stuff Zio-supremacists say makes it pretty clear that preservation of “Jewish State” trumps justice and morality, and that few, if any, tears will be shed should Israel “need” to cleanse or kill the remaining Palestinian “demographic”.

        (You’ll be able to tell just how many tears the “liberal Zionists” are crying – they’ll be too busy “holding their noses” at the atrocities being committed by their co-collectivists to wipe the tears away.)

        My “Sorry, Mooser” apology was meant to address the fact that I was channelling RW again, something for which you recently took me to task (sort of). ;-)

      • eljay
        December 12, 2012, 8:00 am

        >> My contention …

        I just realized that I most likely misread your contention. If I have it right this time, you’re saying that Zionists will shed crocodile tears rather than overtly celebrate the destruction they are undertaking? Fair enough, I agree with that, too.

        Ultimately, I do believe that as long as “Jewish State” is the end, pretty much any means will be considered fair game.

      • RoHa
        December 12, 2012, 8:24 am

        “I weep for you,” the Walrus said:
        “I deeply sympathize.”
        With sobs and tears he sorted out
        Those of the largest size,
        Holding his pocket handkerchief
        Before his streaming eyes.

    • seafoid
      December 10, 2012, 8:33 am

      Have you ever been to Kerak Des Chevaliers in Syria?

      link to en.wikipedia.org

      Even if the bots somehow managed to expel all of the Palestinians, Israel would be doomed. Western landing strips in that part of Asia don’t last.

      Israel will end up as a Brazilian.

  6. Kathleen
    December 9, 2012, 3:19 pm

    Yes Phil many of us have “called for American journalist to describe what is actually going on in the Palestinians territories.” Many “gentiles” have been pushing for this for decades. Calling into national radio and TV news programs (I am proud to say that Camera has a running file on my phone calls into Washington Journal the last few years but they missed several decades of my phone calls into that program about this issue), talked directly with the host of these national shows (have talked directly with Chris Matthews, Ed, Scott Simon, Neil Conan) many of us have sent them petitions about the lack of coverage signed by hundreds of people asking them to not only cover the issue but to be more accurate. Many of us have been writing to the executives of these outlets asking them to cover this issue.

    They don’t need to personally describe the situation they need to just state THE FACTS. The UN resolutions and International law that Israel has been in violation of for decades. Just state the facts and show the real maps.

    Now we hear more and more voices of MSM journalist stating facts etc. But it really seems at this point this is all a lot too late.

    Several years ago heard former President Jimmy Carter say that it had become clear that Israel had never really been working for a two state solution. That Israel’s continued expansion of settlements had made that clear.

    Can you imagine if President Obama sent Former President’s Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton and former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski to “pressure” Netanyahu and the state of Israel to do the right thing before it is too late. Instead we get Secretary of State Clinton kissing their ass.

    Have often described a Palestinian Solidarity conference at Ohio State about this issue. Talked with a crazy right wing Rabbi and his team outside the conference. The one calling everyone into the conference “murderers, murderers.” He shocked me but when I talked with about 10 young Jewish students at Ohio State what they said simply alarmed me even more. Not only were they talking about transfer of Palestinians to Jordan on buses etc. Quite a few of them talked about permanently offing Palestinians. Violent racist words

    • James Canning
      December 10, 2012, 2:27 pm

      Has Hillary Clinton concluded that she should not even mention “illegal settlements” if she wants an easier time seeking the nomination for the presidency in 2016?

  7. James Canning
    December 9, 2012, 3:46 pm

    Surely the fact illegal Jewish colonies have been built in the West Bank does not mean the borders must be changed. All countries should try to reinforce the message to Israel it cannot unilaterally change the borders of the West Bank.

    • JennieS
      December 9, 2012, 11:21 pm

      From a Zionist viewpoint changing borders and ethno-religous make up of the population of the area is no problem, providing that they have the power, and powerful support to do so. This article shows how the UN partition plan for Palestine was pre-empted before the actual partition link to representativepress.org .
      If you want a look at Palestine before the Jewish take over go to link to lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com (thanks Mooser)

      • Mooser
        December 10, 2012, 4:06 pm

        “If you want a look at Palestine before the Jewish take over…”

        Look at the arresting and beautiful photographs of old Palestine. But don’t stop there, the transcript (from the British report) of the attacks by Zionists on Arab civilians in the months leading up to the King David Hotel blast makes very interesting reading.

  8. seafoid
    December 9, 2012, 4:20 pm

    The notion that apartheid and worse are the fulfilment of some jewish covenant with god and that.lieberman is what 80 generations of jews prayed for is beyond deluded. Israel is not prophecy. It is a nightmare. Those pre ww2 rabbis who encouraged their followers to stay well away from the holy land had the right idea. When israel collapses what will happen to the notion of the return to zion as a step to paradise? It looks like the road to hell.

  9. David Doppler
    December 9, 2012, 5:03 pm

    Even the editorial board of the Sacramento Bee, the McClatchy flagship, has come out strongly in its lead December 5 editorial against the announced E1 settlements, what it calls a “strategic blunder.”

    “The United States should take a strong stand – not just voice muted criticism – against expanded Israeli settlements.” And “the time for tsk-tsking is over.”

    link to sacbee.com

  10. hophmi
    December 9, 2012, 5:19 pm

    Sorry, but this is bullshit. Every single peace plan has assumed Ma’ale Adumim will be part of Israel. And that is something the Palestinians have always accepted. Incorporating Ma’ale Adumim, which is a huge town, does not affect the contiguity of the West Bank at all.

    You’re welcome to experiment with borders yourself at this excellent website, which is a project of the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace.

    link to ispeacepossible.com

    • seafoid
      December 10, 2012, 6:33 am

      If Maale Adumim is part of Israel, Herzliya should go to Palestine

      • hophmi
        December 10, 2012, 6:43 am

        So you`re not in favor of peace. Got it.

      • seafoid
        December 10, 2012, 7:18 am

        Hophmi

        Peace means justice. If Jews want MA they have to reciprocate. I don’t believe you can paint a smiley face on the turd of apartheid and call it peace.

        Israel was lovely while it lasted but only moral values endure long term.

      • Cliff
        December 10, 2012, 7:31 am

        hophmi

        you’re not in favor of peace, you’re in favor of piece – pieces of Palestine.

      • Talkback
        December 10, 2012, 9:01 am

        @ hopmi

        So you’re in favor of war crimes and land theft. Got it.

        Anything else? Perhaps maintaining an expulsion to run an apartheid state for example? Of course only when Jews are not its victims?

      • Mooser
        December 10, 2012, 4:11 pm

        “So you’re in favor of war crimes and land theft. Got it.”

        And gouging the money for it out of the good ol’ US of A. A great plan, which will redound to the glory of the Jews through the coming centuries.

      • Darcha
        December 11, 2012, 1:10 am

        Gotta love Zio-logic! Being in favor of peace means deliberately looking the other way at a crime and opposing crime is terrorism.

    • Kathleen
      December 10, 2012, 7:33 am

      It is almost laughable if it were not so sad and disastrous that map. When you look at the individual settlements built just over the 67 line they say “close to the 67 border” Absolutely insane. If Israel has wanted to really protects itself based on the internationally recognized border they would have never started stealing more land, building illegal settlements. They would have built their “security” wall/fence/barrier on the their side of the 67 line.

      • hophmi
        December 10, 2012, 10:17 am

        “Absolutely insane.”

        What is insane about it? If the Arabs had succeeded in pushing the Jews into the sea in 1948, would you be here now standing up the UN-recognized right of Jews to a state in the Middle East and railing against Arab settlements in Tel Aviv? You wouldn’t.

        “They would have built their “security” wall/fence/barrier on the their side of the 67 line.”

        Yes, I can’t understand why Jews to the West of the Green Line would care about those on the East side. I mean, it’s not like Arabs in the Middle East care much about the Palestinians, right? Only Muslims and Christians are supposed to care about each other, right?

      • James Canning
        December 10, 2012, 4:06 pm

        Perhaps Jews should not have settled illegally on the “East side”?

      • Talkback
        December 11, 2012, 9:11 am

        “If the Arabs had succeeded in pushing the Jews into the sea in 1948, would you be here now standing up the UN-recognized right of Jews to a state in the Middle East and railing against Arab settlements in Tel Aviv? You wouldn’t.”

        The partition resolution was only a recommendation. Would you have excepted to let the citizens of Palestine decide this question by majority rule?

        Or do you support majority rule only if the outcome is good for Jews or they have the majority by maintaining an expulsion of Nonjews?

      • Woody Tanaka
        December 11, 2012, 10:18 am

        “What is insane about it? If the Arabs had succeeded in pushing the Jews into the sea in 1948″

        Blood libel.

        “…would you be here now standing up the UN-recognized right of Jews to a state in the Middle East and railing against Arab settlements in Tel Aviv?”

        If the Palestinians had kept those Jews as stateless serfs and brutally oppressed them, as the Jews did to the Palestinians, I would be calling for the same thing I call for now: full equality, freedom and justice, human and political rights for all, without regard for ethnicity or religion.

        You see, hoppy, you might be a bigot, but that doesn’t mean anyone else is.

        “Yes, I can’t understand why Jews to the West of the Green Line would care about those on the East side.”

        The problem isn’t the caring, it’s the fact that they’re on stolen land. If they cared about them so darned much, they’d make them move off of stolen land, back west of the Green Line where they belong, until such time as they can request permission from the State of Palestine to immigrate.

      • eljay
        December 11, 2012, 10:28 am

        >> If the Arabs had succeeded in pushing the Jews into the sea in 1948…

        Translation: If the Arabs had prevented the partition of Palestine and the emergence – by means of terrorism and ethnic cleasning – of an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist “Jewish State”.

        >> … would you be here now standing up the UN-recognized right of Jews to a state in the Middle East and railing against Arab settlements in Tel Aviv?

        Had “Arabs” thwarted Zionist plans and then proceeded to create a supremacist “Arab State” of Palestine, complete with Arab-only settlements throughout, it would be completely unjust and immoral and worthy of condemnation.

        Zio-supremacist concerns that “Arabs” might have done what Zio-supremacists actually have done is not a valid justification for Zio-supremacist immorality and injustice.

        >> Yes, I can’t understand why Jews to the West of the Green Line would care about those on the East side.

        Steal and colonize…and then cry victim. :-(

        If Jews West of the Green Line really cared about those on the East side:
        - they would never have permitted and/or encouraged them to settle to the East in the first place;
        - they would bring back to within the security of the borders of Israel those who settled to the East.

        But then the supremacist “Jewish State” of Greater Israel would have to give up some of what it had stolen, and that simply wouldn’t do! :-(

      • pjdude
        December 11, 2012, 10:47 am

        the un never recognized a jewish right to a state. they recognized a state of jews after the fact a recognized the idea of a national home but never a state.

        and it funny you repeat the tired lie of the arabs wanting to push the jews into the sea when zionists forces actually did push the indigenous palestinians into the sea

      • Kathleen
        December 13, 2012, 12:03 pm

        ding ding ding

      • James Canning
        December 10, 2012, 2:17 pm

        Bravo. Yes, the “security barrier should have been built on the Green Line. Needs to be moved.

    • Sumud
      December 10, 2012, 8:32 am

      Every single peace plan has assumed Ma’ale Adumim will be part of Israel. And that is something the Palestinians have always accepted.

      Can’t see past the end of your pinnochio nose hophmi:

      • The Fahd Plan and the Fez Initiative from the 80s.
      • The long ignored Arab Peace Initiative from 2002 signed on by every country in the Arab League and every country of the OIC including Iran.

      Those were/are plans accepted by Palestinians, and don’t include any illegal Israeli colonies being swallowed up by Israel.

      • hophmi
        December 10, 2012, 10:14 am

        LOL. There were no maps with these initiatives. Nor are they consistent with a negotiated peace. They were political statements, not peace plans.

        I’m sure the Palestinians loved Qaddafi’s Isratine plan too. Who cares? Not me, and not the international community.

      • James Canning
        December 10, 2012, 4:07 pm

        At Taba, Egypt in January 2001, the Palestinians gave Israel detailed maps of proposed deal. No response from Israel.

      • hophmi
        December 13, 2012, 5:21 pm

        Actually the Israelis presented maps at Taba. The Palestinians refused to accept the principle that Israel would have to annex the settlements blocs.

        link to en.wikipedia.org

      • James Canning
        December 14, 2012, 7:52 pm

        Israel did not respond to the maps provided by the Palestinians.

        Israel provided its own maps, at the outset.

      • Sumud
        December 15, 2012, 9:05 am

        LOL. There were no maps with these initiatives.

        No need for maps when you have international law on your side.

        Most recently, the Arab Peace Initiative is very much a plan, requiring only that Israel comply with international law (and consensus among nations) and return to the pre-1967 borders, and is even so generous as to permit a negotiated solution to the question of the refugees. Every member of the Arab League and the OIC (including Iran) is on board for it.

        You can sit there smugly writing hophmi but believe me, there will come a day in your life when you’ll wish Israel had accepted the API, even if it meant evacuating every single stinking settlement.

        The great gamble of 1967 has been lost and Israel is trapped: can’t withdraw from the settlements without provoking a civil war, can’t stay in the settlements because when Palestinians start demanding one person/one vote the world will side with them – American power is in decline.

        Even the solution dreamed for by increasing numbers of zionists (genocide of Palestinians, “death to arabs” they scream) will not solve the problem.

        Zionists underestimated Palestinian sumud, and they don’t really love the land. Not when dozens of settlments flood the West Bank with raw sewage and burn down olive trees hundreds of years old…

      • eljay
        December 15, 2012, 10:20 am

        >> The Palestinians refused to accept the principle that Israel would have to annex the settlements blocs.

        Israel didn’t have to annex the blocs, it wanted to annex them. The Palestinians were right to refuse.

      • James Canning
        December 15, 2012, 2:17 pm

        Excellent point, that Israel would be wise to accept the Saudi peace plan of 2002, with a few tweaks.
        Do the illegal settlements have to be evacuated? Maybe not. Compensation would have to be paid, for land etc taken by the settlers.

      • James Canning
        December 15, 2012, 2:27 pm

        Good point. The Palestinians will accept some border revisions, but literally insane “separation barrier” needs to be relocated to the Green Line.

      • eljay
        December 15, 2012, 3:44 pm

        >> Zionists … don’t really love the land.

        Zio-supremacists covet the land they don’t possess, and love the land once they possess it.

    • talknic
      December 10, 2012, 9:01 am

      Ma’ale Adumim was not with the territory allotted for the Jewish State, not within the territory recognized as Israel, has never been legally annexed to Israel.

      S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace fails to take into account all the territory acquired by war by Israel by 1949/50. None of which has ever been legally annexed to Israel.

      Israel’s illegal claim to this territory on 31st Aug 1949 link to wp.me were denied, referring back to the 1949 Armistice Agreements link to domino.un.org , which specifically did NOT change any borders.

      Swapping the Palestinians Palestinian land for Palestinian land so Israel can keep Palestinian land is an arrogant stupidity the Palestinians are NOT OBLIGED by any Law or UN/UNSC resolution to accept.

    • Donald
      December 10, 2012, 11:46 am

      I think I’ll believe Plitnick (who is a 2ss supporter, btw) and B’Tselem over you, hophmi.

      Btselem on e1 ramifications

      • hophmi
        December 10, 2012, 12:51 pm

        You’re entitled to believe what you want. I’m not in favor of building in E-1 either. This is political, in my opinion, and in the opinion of most Israelis. But at the end of the day, this admittedly political housing approval (building that wouldn’t take place for years) has met with a similarly political response from the Palestinians, who know that it is not going to disadvantage them in any meaningful way for the time being.

  11. piotr
    December 10, 2012, 4:27 am

    Dear hophmi,

    “every single peace plan has assumed Ma’ale Adumin…”

    So among documents that were circulated, including (or not) famous napkin of Olmert, some will be called “proposals” and some “initiatives or positions” to make your statement “true”. By the way, I would like to propose to make a swap of your property with the same area of a desert in Western Texas (carefully selected not to have oil). But I will select better elevator music than S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace. Perhaps Wagner?

    Also, the currect GoI resolutely refused to put out any territorial offer other than Israel taking the entire Area C. For all their complains about Palestinians not negotiating, in January Palestinians gave their proposal and Israel did not, and that was end of negotiations.

    • hophmi
      December 13, 2012, 5:23 pm

      “By the way, I would like to propose to make a swap of your property with the same area of a desert in Western Texas ”

      What a stupid comparison. These are people who live close to one another.

      • talknic
        December 15, 2012, 11:13 am

        piotr

        Hophmi … seems to think you meant the a whole desert in Western Texas for his property.

        Seems to have missed “the same area”, even tho it’s cut and pasted.

Leave a Reply