Endless ‘debate over two-state solution’ is cover for the real story, annexation of West Bank

One of the wiser political observations I’ve read lately was from Joseph Dana in the National: “the debate about the two-state solution has become an important diversion from discussing the true nature of Israeli colonialism.” I’ve noticed the same thing, from rightwingers and even liberal Zionists: Keep talking about the need for the two state solution, so that no one talks about land policies that have made it impossible.

When the truth is that Israeli governance is moving toward annexation (as Annie Robbins and Allison Deger have repeatedly pointed out). Here are two good treatments of the annexation push in mainstream media. First Dana at the National

Much to the dismay of the international community and proponents of a two-state solution, Israel recently announced that it would begin planning for settlement creation in the E-1 area east of Jerusalem. Israeli settlements in this area would effectively sever Palestinians from Jerusalem save for a few access roads carefully controlled by Israeli soldiers. When – not if – Israel begins building in E-1, it will end the two-state solution paradigm as we have come to understand it.

Threatening to cement the further entrenchment of the status quo are the upcoming early elections in Israel. Israel is heading for early elections in January on a platform that confirms the future entrenchment of the status quo. Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister, is set to cruise to victory with one of the most openly antagonistic and right-wing coalitions in Israel’s history. His coalition will include a collection of right-wing politicians who call for varying degrees of annexation in the West Bank.

“The Israeli election does not signify a chance for change, but the opposite: we are more likely to end up with a government that has the maintenance of the status quo as the centre of its policy,” said the Israeli journalist Noam Sheizaf about the upcoming elections. “Probably the only issue all coalition partners can agree on is the status quo.”

In the New York Times, Jodi Rudoren writes about American-Israeli Naftali Bennett, 40, of the Jewish Home Party, which has become a rightwing force in the Israeli polity, because it could take as many as 15 seats in the upcoming elections. He wants annexation. At least he’s upfront about it:

Mr. Bennett has said he does not believe a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is achievable in their lifetime.

So, instead of peace, he talks about annexation — as in, Israel should annex the nearly two-thirds of the West Bank known as Area C, which is home to 350,000 Jewish settlers. In his view, the Palestinians who live there — estimates range from Mr. Bennett’s 48,000 to the United Nations’ 150,000 — could then apply for Israeli citizenship, akin to those who live within Israel’s 1948 borders. Then he would try to remove checkpoints to ease traffic and movement throughout the region, and, he said in a recent interview, “make a grocery list of 20 things we could do to make life better” for both Jews and Palestinians living in the territory.

“Forget whether it’s right or wrong; we’re here to stay, now what can we do about it?” he said. “To strive for perfection brings disaster again and again. It’s time for new thinking.

So when will our politicians begin to reflect this reality? When will liberal Zionists?

Update. More evidence of the trend, thanks to commenter Mikeo. Guardian:

Prominent members of Israel‘s ruling Likud party have proposed the annexation of part of the West Bank as the battle for rightwing votes intensifies before the general election in less than three weeks.

Government minister Yuli Edelstein told a conference in Jerusalem that the lack of Israeli sovereignty over Area C – the 60% of the West Bank under full Israeli military control in which all settlements are situated – “strengthens the international community’s demand for a withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines”.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Israel/Palestine, Israeli Government, Occupation, One state/Two states, Settlers/Colonists

{ 0 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. mondonut says:

    When – not if – Israel begins building in E-1, it will end the two-state solution paradigm as we have come to understand it.

    This is only half true, as in it is only true for those Palestinians and their supporters unwilling to accept a state without Jerusalem. In reality, it is the stubborn refusal of Fatah to compromise on borders and refugees that will end their dreams – as for Hamas and Gaza, they of course still cling to their insistence on the demise of Israel itself. A demand that Dana does not figure as problematic to the 2SS.

    • it is the stubborn refusal of Fatah to compromise on borders

      did you sleep thru the palestine papers?

      link to mondoweiss.net

      • mondonut says:

        Nope. Nor did I sleep through the Palestinians denying that which you are trying to asseert.

        Saeb Erekat …

        The release of Palestinian documents by al-Jazeera reveals nothing new about the nature and content of negotiations. Rather, it constitutes an unambiguous slander campaign aimed at the Palestinian leadership at a time when we seek to take new measures in defence of the Palestinian cause.

        We have been accused of making great concessions to Israel behind the back of the Palestinian people. Such allegations are groundless.

        …A careful and complete reading of the documents at hand – which goes beyond the sensationalised headlines and spin – will reveal this to be true. First and foremost, it is essential to understand that no agreement has ever been reached between the parties on any of the permanent status issues. This reality, by its very definition, renders it impossible that either party has conceded anything.

        Of equal and closely related importance is the most fundamental premise that has been the basis of our negotiations with Israel: namely, that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Accordingly, it is impossible to look at any negotiation map, proffered land swap, or any other issue in isolation without understanding the overall offer then on the table. Any such attempt places an issue squarely out of context. It is at best a misguided exercise, and one that is assured of misrepresenting the facts in any given portion of what have been lengthy, detailed and highly-charged negotiations.

    • talknic says:

      Whatever fantasies you need to have mondonut ..

      Fact of the matter is Israel has dug such a deep illegal ‘facts on the ground’ hole for itself, it long ago passed the point where it can afford to adhere to the law without going bankrupt paying reparations and relocating hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens back to Israel’s actual legal territories.

      Whatever terms one might use, ‘occupied territories’ per UNSC resolutions or ‘disputed territories’ per stupid Israeli propaganda, until such time as there is a final agreement, they are NOT Israeli territories.

      Furthermore even though the Palestinians might have obliged themselves to negotiate in some past agreement, they are under no legal obligation to forgo ANY of their legal rights.

      • mondonut says:

        talknic says: Whatever fantasies you need to have mondonut ..
        ======================================
        If it were not for the requisite insult I would not have known you responding to my comment, as it is so off topic. Nonetheless, you are correct that in the absence of a final agreement that what the Israelis refer to as disputed territories are NOT Israeli territories, but neither are they Palestinian.

        You are also correct that the Palestinians are under no legal obligation to do much of anything at all – and that includes actually doing what is necessary to create, build and run an actual state.

        • talknic says:

          ” but neither are they Palestinian”

          Whatever fantasies you need to have mondonut, UNSC res 476 says otherwise 1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;

          It’s actually quite simple. If it isn’t the “acknowledged” sovereign territory of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt or Israel, by default it’s a territory of Palestine, regardless of whether Palestine is a recognized state or not.

        • Talkback says:

          mondonut says:

          “Nonetheless, you are correct that in the absence of a final agreement that what the Israelis refer to as disputed territories are NOT Israeli territories, but neither are they Palestinian.”

          So you actually slept through many decades of UN ruling and an ICJ advisory opinion that the territories are Palestinians territories occupied by Israel and since the UN upgrade are officially part of a Palestinian STATE.

        • Hostage says:

          Nonetheless, you are correct that in the absence of a final agreement that what the Israelis refer to as disputed territories are NOT Israeli territories, but neither are they Palestinian.

          LOL! If you believe that then, Israel’s territory is also NOT Israeli, but neither is it Palestinian. In fact, international armistice lines of demarcation are legal boundaries under customary international law, especially ones that were adopted under the terms of Chapter VII Security Council resolutions. While they are open to modification by mutual consent, the same thing can be said for every other border on the planet. Neither the 1949 Armistice agreements, nor any subsequent ones, require either party to agree to any changes.

        • sardelapasti says:

          Not only Palestinians have not forfeited any of their rights, they also are not under any obligation to compromise. If no compromise is forthcoming, ever, on the American-Zionist side (and after a hundred years it sure looks like none is ever coming), they will one day realize that their rightful requirement should be all of Palestine –and all invaders back to where they came from. Utopian? Not necessarily; US support is not here forever, as French power was not unmovable for the Algerians.

          The idea started getting out, by the way, even though it was immediately repudiated by the Egyptian government. See link to informationclearinghouse.info

        • mondonut says:

          talknic says: Whatever fantasies you need to have mondonut, UNSC res 476 says otherwise.
          =======================================
          It says no such, thing. It does not declare (as the UN has no power to) any territory as Palestinian. Nor does it become Palestinian “by default”, that is just ridiculous. If it is not Israeli, nor Palestinian, but claimed by both – then whose land it is is yet to be determined.

        • mondonut says:

          Talkback says: So you actually slept through many decades of UN ruling and an ICJ advisory opinion
          =================================
          The UN, in any capacity that matters, has never ruled on the land as Palestinian, because it does not have the power to do so. And the ICJ opinion is simply an opinion, it has zero weight.

        • mondonut says:

          Hostage says: In fact, international armistice lines of demarcation are legal boundaries under customary international law, especially ones that were adopted under the terms of Chapter VII Security Council resolutions.
          =====================================
          The Armistice agreement specifically required that the ceasefire lines not be treated, ever, as an international border. The Palestinians however did not agree to this, as they were not party to the agreement.

        • It’s occupied, and Israel was not ever supposed to transfer population into occupied territory.

        • Hostage says:

          The Armistice agreement specifically required that the ceasefire lines not be treated, ever, as an international border. The Palestinians however did not agree to this, as they were not party to the agreement.

          No it did not. The agreement simply stated that it did not prejudice the rights of the parties in any “future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims.” But those clauses did not prejudice the immediate legal character and effects of a permanent armistice demarcation line or alter the provisions and intent of Security Council resolutions 54 (15 July 1948); 62 (16 November 1948); and 73 (11 August 1949). Those resolutions specifically remain in effect pending any future peaceful settlement.

          Security Council resolution 54 ordered an immediate cease fire. 62 decided to remove the threat to peace by establishing an armistice in Palestine, including the delineation of permanent armistice demarcation lines beyond which the armed forces of the respective parties shall not move. 73 ordered the parties to observe an unconditional cease-fire pending the final peace settlement and to ensure the continued application and observance of the Armistice agreements.

          Article IV Armistice Agreement with Jordan said:
          1. The lines described in articles V and VI of this Agreement shall be designated as the Armistice Demarcation Lines and are delineated in pursuance of the purpose and intent of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948.

          2. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Lines is to delineate the lines beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move.

          3. Rules and regulations of the armed forces of the Parties, which prohibit civilians from crossing the fighting lines or entering the area between the lines, shall remain in effect after the signing of this Agreement with application to the Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI.

          Article VI said:

          9. The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.

          11. The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in this article and in article V shall be subject to such rectification as may be agreed upon by the Parties to this Agreement, and all such rectifications shall have the same force and effect as if they had been incorporated in full in this General Armistice Agreement.
          link to mfa.gov.il

          General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), “The Declaration On Principles Of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations And Co-Operation Among States In Accordance With The Charter Of The United Nations” reflects the applicable customary law and treaty obligations on the subject. It provides that:

          Every State… has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.

          The ICJ cited that customary prohibition and resolution 62 in its legal analysis in the Wall case and found that Israel was in violation of its obligations. Israel is a party to the 1949 Armistice agreements. There are still Chapter VII (Article 40) provisional measures that were put into effect by the UN Security Council that require the parties to the conflict to observe and implement those agreements pending any final settlement. See S/RES/73 (1949) link to unispal.un.org

        • Hostage says:

          The UN, in any capacity that matters, has never ruled on the land as Palestinian, because it does not have the power to do so. And the ICJ opinion is simply an opinion, it has zero weight.

          LOL! Every UN organ has the authority to make legal determinations within it’s own area of competence in the fulfillment of its Charter functions and purposes. Every primary UN organ has declared it to be Occupied Palestinian territory, while cataloging a laundry list of wrongful or illegal Israeli actions that have been committed against the inhabitants or their territory. The Reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions have also declared it Occupied Palestinian territory and the Israel settlements illegal. FYI, hasbara has zero weight.

        • mondonut says:

          Hostage says: No it did not. The agreement simply stated that it did not prejudice the rights of the parties in any “future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims.” But those clauses did not prejudice the immediate legal character and effects of a permanent armistice demarcation line or alter the provisions and intent of Security Council resolutions 54 … blah, blah, blah
          ===================================
          Again with the quantity over quality. You seem to have a problem with my paraphrasing of the Israeli-Jordanian agreement but the intent of the diplomatic speak is perfectly clear, they were not borders. And subsequent declarations by others not party to the armistice cannot alter that fact. The agreement was between Israel and Jordan, not Israel, Jordan, the UN and the Palestinians.

          More importantly, the armistice between Israel and Jordan ended when they returned to war. And the subsequent peace agreement between the parties did not stipulate that the Green Line was an International border.

          At no point in time was the Israeli-Jordanian armistice line transformed into an Israeli-Palestinian International border.

        • talknic says:

          mondonut ” The agreement simply stated that it did not prejudice the rights of the parties in any “future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims.”

          Hilarious stuff…. Read the whole document did you? Or just stop where it pleases you?

        • Shingo says:

          And the ICJ opinion is simply an opinion, it has zero weight.

          it has far or weight than Israel’s opinion.

        • Shingo says:

          The agreement was between Israel and Jordan, not Israel, Jordan, the UN and the Palestinians.

          Jordan handed sovereingty of the West Bank to the PLO in 1988.

        • Shingo says:

          More importantly, the armistice between Israel and Jordan ended when they returned to war. And the subsequent peace agreement between the parties did not stipulate that the Green Line was an International border.

          False on both counts.

          1. UNSC242 refers to territory occupied by Israel in the 1967 war as inadmissible. it defines the territory occupied as anything beyond the Green Line.

          Israel accepted 242.

          2. The subsequent peace agreement between the parties was based on UNSC242.

        • Hostage says:

          Again with the quantity over quality. You seem to have a problem with my paraphrasing of the Israeli-Jordanian agreement but the intent of the diplomatic speak is perfectly clear, they were not borders.

          Again with the vacuous hasbara. You aren’t paraphrasing any text that appears in the agreement when it violates both the explicit content and intent of the Security Council resolution of November 16th, 1948 and the stated understanding of the parties regarding the new territorial limits of their military and civilian jurisdictions.

          The intent of the Security Council was to establish “permanent armistice lines of demarcation” and it was specifically agreed that neither the military nor the civilians of either side could cross those frontiers until a peaceful settlement was mutually agreed upon. The safeguarding provisions only preserved the right of the parties to present claims in the future regarding boundaries. It did not permit either side to treat the existing lines as anything other than the legal international boundaries.

          Contrary to your propaganda claims, Israel and the other members have granted the General Assembly the necessary legal authority to accomplish its functions and purposes on their own territories. See Article 104 of the Charter:
          link to yale.edu

          That right does not apply to the territories of neighboring non-member states or regimes. One of the customary functions of the General Assembly is determining the validity of the members credentials to legally represent a given territory in cases where the land frontiers have not yet been clearly defined. The practice of validating the credentials of each member dates back at least to the time of the founding of the League of Nations.

          The fact that the Armistice lines serve as the legal boundaries of Israel’s civil and military jurisdiction has been driven home repeatedly by the members of the Security Council, General Assembly, and the ICJ. See for example:
          *Tripartite Declaration Regarding the Armistice Borders : Statement by the Governments of the United States, The United Kingdom, and France, May 25, 1950
          link to avalon.law.yale.edu
          * The General Assembly resolutions which say the credentials of the delegation of Israel do not apply to the Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem, and the verbatim record of the General Assembly discussion of the matter in resolution 58/292 which indicates the words “pre-1967 borders” had intentionally been adopted to replace the words “Armistice Line of 1949”. link to un.org
          *The conclusion of the Secretary General’s Memorandum on the Preparatory Study Concerning a Draft Declaration on the Rights and Duties of States that: “The manifestation of sovereignty in tangible form is jurisdiction.” See UN Document A/CN.4/2 pdf page 49.
          *Abba Eban admitted the Armistice agreements are a legally binding settlement that can only be replaced by a peace agreement during the Security Council’s 433rd meeting. He also said that:

          The armistice lines do not merely separate armed forces. They mark the clearly defined areas of full civil jurisdiction. The Government, the courts, the legislatures, the security authorities of each respective State operate smoothly and unchallenged up to the appropriate armistice line. These lines thus have the normal characteristics of provisional frontiers until such time as a new process of negotiation and agreement determines the final territorial settlement. They are also stabilized by the mutual undertakings of the parties and by the fullest international sanction for as long as the Armistice Agreements are valid.

          link to un.org

          Mr Eban was correct. There have always been international boundaries or borders that are comprised of provisional demarcation lines. In the “North Sea Continental Shelf case (1968), the ICJ noted that:

          “There is no rule that the land frontiers of a State must be fully delimited and defined, and often in various places and for long periods they are not, as is shown by the case of the entry of Albania into the League of Nations (Monastery of Saint Naoum, Advisor): Opinion, 1924, P.C.I.J., Series B, No. 9, at p. 10).” See pdf file page 60 of 109)

          link to icj-cij.org

          Israel is another example of a state which was admitted to the UN before its boundaries were fully delimited. But the credentials committee has determined that the 1967 borders are the legal extent of its national jurisdiction pending the conclusion of some other settlement.

        • Hostage says:

          mondonut: The agreement was between Israel and Jordan, not Israel, Jordan, the UN and the Palestinians.

          Shingo: Jordan handed sovereingty of the West Bank to the PLO in 1988.

          We’ve been over that enough times in the past. “Jordan” was a new legal entity formed by the union between Arab Palestine and Transjordan after the Jericho Congress. So who exactly does Mondonut think the “Jordan” was? And why did Israel enter into a binding international agreement with that new joint entity which recognized its legal competence to conclude a final settlement on boundaries? Quigley and a host of others have noted that only sovereign states can conclude valid agreements on boundaries.

          More importantly, the armistice between Israel and Jordan ended when they returned to war. And the subsequent peace agreement between the parties did not stipulate that the Green Line was an International border.

          We’ve been over that in the past as well. Article 3(2) of the Peace Agreement between Israel and Jordan stipulated that:

          The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognized international boundary between Jordan and Israel, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

          link to kinghussein.gov.jo

          So no, that treaty didn’t even prejudice the rights of the Hashemite Kingdom to assert claims in any final settlement regarding that territory.

      • pabelmont says:

        talknik and others:

        My favorite fantasy (looking only marginally less fantastic as days go by) is that a power emerge “from the woodwork out” which forces Israel (via adequately broad-based nation level BDS) to either [1] end the occupations (all of them and completely) or, more likely, [2] remove all the settlers, dismantle the wall and all the settlements.

        My fantasy involves, as an important detail, the nations setting a one-year deadline for completion of whatever it is they demand and a one-month deadline for Israeli publication of a schedule for uniform achievement of the demanded events (for example, a schedule describing removal of 1/11 of the present settlers per month and demolition or dismantlement of 1/11 of the wall and of 1/11 of the settlement buildings (including, e.g., the Ariel “university”) in the 11 months remaining of the one-year-to-achieve; and SANCTIONS to kick in upon Israel’s failure to publish the schedule within one month or to complete the 11 monthly removal tasks timely (per published schedule). The UNGA would also make inspection by permanent UN inspectors a required part of the “deal”, sanctions to kick in if the inspectors are not allowed in or are interfered with.

        In my fantasy, the Israelis will desire to “save” some settlements near “Jerusalem” and will either [1] negotiate a handsome peace “deal” with the Palestinians or [2] ignore the international BDS Sanctions and suffer the consequences. One cannot expect that all trade will stop, because the USA will continue, so I am “banking” on the power of international opprobrium not only voiced in words (which has been done and been shown useless over 45 years) but spoken in graduated “actions” (first, removal of ambassadors, then one month later, cancellation of commercial airflights, then one month later still, denial of visas to Israelis, and ultimately ending of all trade in goods and services with Israel and Israeli companies). The idea of the “gradual” sanctions is to make the sanctions predictable, easy to enforce initially, and thus easy for the nations in their large numbers to join.

        A great fantasy, hunh? Anybody got a better fantasy? The mere “illegality” of settlements and wall does not, sadly, constitute or imply automatic sanctions — they’ve been illegal for 45 years and the (mere) illegality has had no sanctioning effect (other than the other meaning of sanctioning — that is, allowing with approval (here, “praising with faint damns”)). The nations must actually ACT if Israel is to turn around, and Israel has known this since 1948, and Ben-Gurion is widely quoted as saying that “What matters is not what the Gentiles will say, but what the Jews will do” (Wikipedia: “Um-Shmum”).

    • the steadfast creation of “the only prison in the world where the prisoners have to provide for themselves” Dov Weisglass

      The only fault of Abbas was excessive compromise for no gain.

    • RoHa says:

      ” the stubborn refusal of Fatah to compromise on borders and refugees”

      Of course, when you say “compromise” you mean “give Israel everything it asks for”.

      • Talkback says:

        RoHa says: “Of course, when you say “compromise” you mean “give Israel everything it asks for”.

        To mondonut 78% is not a “comprise”, neither 55% and especially not the Balfour Declaration.

      • mondonut says:

        RoHa says: Of course, when you say “compromise” you mean “give Israel everything it asks for”.
        ====================================
        When did I say that? Never? It is not my opinion that the Israelis should get everything they have asked for, and the same goes for the Palestinians.

        • RoHa says:

          “It is not my opinion that the Israelis should get everything they have asked for”

          But history has shown that is the only sort of “compromise” the Israelis will accept.

        • Shingo says:

          It is not my opinion that the Israelis should get everything they have asked for, and the same goes for the Palestinians.

          The Palestinians already gave up all the territory between the 1948 borders and the Green Line.That’s 50% of their territory.

          That’s quite enough don;t you think?

    • pjdude says:

      So it the palestinians fault for wanting all their rights and all their territory?

      • mondonut says:

        pjdude says: So it the palestinians fault for wanting all their rights and all their territory?
        ==========================================
        It is not their’s yet, it still amounts to a claim, same for the Israelis. And the RoR is not an actual right, it also is simply a claim. So yes, if peace is going to fail over “rights” and territorial claims that will never be realized, then the Palestinians certainly carry part of the blame.

        • pjdude says:

          how you have a pretty screwed up view. its the palestinians territory. just because thugs in ISrael want it doesn’t mean it it isn’t theirs also the ROR is a legally mandated right that ISrael has criminally prevented for like 70 years

        • RoHa says:

          “It is not their’s yet, it still amounts to a claim, same for the Israelis. And the RoR is not an actual right, it also is simply a claim.”

          If the claims are just (and they are) then the blame falls solely on the party who refuses to acknowledge the claims.

        • talknic says:

          mondonut

          “It is not their’s yet, it still amounts to a claim, same for the Israelis”

          Wrong. Israel if it isn’t the legal territory of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt or Israel, it is by default what remains of Palestine.

          ” And the RoR is not an actual right, it also is simply a claim.”

          It is a right under which they can claim return or compensation.

          ” if peace is going to fail over “rights” and territorial claims that will never be realized, then the Palestinians certainly carry part of the blame”

          Hilarious. The Palestinians are under no obligation whatsoever to forgo any of their rights. Israel is legally obliged, as a UN Member State, to recognize those rights

        • Talkback says:

          mondonut says: “It is not their’s yet, it still amounts to a claim, same for the Israelis.”

          Yeah Israel’s territory is “disputed”, too. But what gives Israel any legal entitlement to parts of Palestine, mondonut?

  2. 2 things to add to this. one the predicament of palestinians in area c wrt applying for Israeli citizenship. it won’t change this:
    link to irinnews.org

    For a start, much of the Valley is officially out of bounds to Palestinians – 44 percent is marked as closed military zones (including so-called firing zones) and nature reserves. An additional 50 percent is controlled by Israeli settlements, regarded as illegal by many in the international community. That leaves only 6 percent for Palestinians, according to figures from Save the Children.

    next video of rightwing Naftali Bennett, of the Jewish Home Party: ‘When Palestinians were climbing trees, we already had a Jewish state’
    link to 972mag.com

  3. surewin says:

    The two-state solution is a solution to a problem. The problem is the public relations challenge associated with a gradual takeover of the West Bank. The solution is to talk about the two-state solution until the takeover is finished.

    • HPH says:

      Phil’s original post generated some discussion with details. Today I decided to insert a supportive comment to emphasize what I think is the essence of the issue. I agree with the statement by surewin. In addition, I think that all the fuss about nukes in Iran is part of this public relations effort. In the end, this effort is doomed because the Palestinians will remain as the living facts on the ground. Although one can summarize approximately 60 years of history in a few sentences, I think no one knows what will have happened after another decade of time. I hope those events don’t involve the US military.

  4. ckg says:

    It seems that the debate in Israel (excluding the minority parties) is whether to allow a Bantustan solution or an Apartheid solution. Meanwhile Americans’ support for Israel vs the Palestinians is on the rise, at least according to Pew polling. Hasbara has won. Either “solution” will find support here in the U.S. The darkness drops again.

    • Blownaway says:

      Increasingly and somewhat because of this issue the US is becoming irrelevant in the world

    • sardelapasti says:

      “It seems that the debate in Israel (excluding the minority parties) is whether to allow a Bantustan solution or an Apartheid solution.”

      Ehm, no.

      There is an obvious third one, the Final one (don’t start censoring yet, as it means trying first to eliminate by wholesale expulsion/displacement) and it’s the one that has garnered the most support among conscious Zionists in the last ninety years or so. Meaning ‘get them off Our Land of Greater Israel as Gifted by Yahweh, El and Adon by any means, preferably expulsion to any “Arab” country to avoid wholesale physical elimination. In Zionist thinking as exposed by word, often in so many words, and action, by Jabotinsky, Bengurion, etc., all the way to the Current Yahoo. Occupaiton, Apartheid, Bantustans, etc. is nothing but a temporary fix to buy time.

    • Boston says:

      I am as cyncial as the next guy when it comes to making progress in resisting the Zioniat Crime Family. However, I find it extremely hard to believe that American support for Israel vs. the Palestinians is on the rise

  5. seafoid says:

    The real story is the takeover of Judaism by all or nothing zionism. Zionism is just another empire of a soiled and grubby world but judaism is lashed to it. The bot takeover of the west bank is a mass delusion. Like they can market excrement as a dior fragrance or apartheid as justice.

    • Mooser says:

      Seafoid, where is this good, half&half, load of compromising on the road to Zionist horizons, Zionism you keep referring to? Yes, it is existed as a fantasy in some people’s heads, that is certainly true.

      And Seafoid, I really hate to say it, but it really must be said (Maria’s not an asset to the Abbey?): Considering the amount of support we Jews have given to Judaism, why would we expect anything but that it would be corrupted? With almost no assets of it’s own (yes, Sean, some Jews hyave high incomes in the US) what else could it have done?

  6. seafoid says:

    Anyone who says the ip conflict is intractable or beyond solving or can’t be figured out in his or her lifetime assumes zionism is too big to fail. And that assumes the world owes something to certain people. And I wouldn’t bet the house on that. But Israel has always been about taking risks and doubling up.

    • Mooser says:

      “But Israel has always been about taking risks and doubling up.”

      So Israel will not just endure, but prevail?

      • seafoid says:

        I think the house will win . It usually does . 67 was never a win either . Btw mooser I don’t think the goys are more moral than bibi’s people . But zionism sucks and israel depends on galut thinking otherwise . Jewish independence in a globalised world is a fantasy .

  7. I would say there are several diversions/rationalizations:

    1. Two State Solution/Peace Process/No partner for peace
    2. Islamophobia/ Dangerous neighborhood/ Clash of Civilizations
    3. Immature, unproductive, primitive culture/
    5. Gay rights, women’s rights
    6. Anti-Semitism/ Denial of Israel’s right to exist/ Delegitimization campaign/ Link to Holocaust and Holocaust Deniers/ Comparison to Nazis and Chamberlain appeasement efforts
    7. Accusations of Conspiracy paranoia/ Lack of Seriousness/ Lack of scholarship/ Hidden motives (see #6)/ Making such into Career Limiting statements
    8. Constant provocation to induce a reaction that can be widely publicized/ Use of False Flag tactics

    All have some basis, and can be trotted out to avoid discussing qui bono or who benefits from this prolonged state of affairs. With several arrows in the quiver, and a reliable and effective echo chamber/tabu enforcers among prestigious “news” organizations, the diversionary tactics have worked well for many years.

    However, when this kind of delicate manipulation of perception and thus power is entrusted to the heavy hands of the likes of Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman, the clock starts to run out, the night flower gets exposed to too much sunlight. The public grows tired, the power is diminished as the perception becomes obviously false to too many people, who increasingly recognize that they are not alone.

    • Erasmus says:

      re : several diversions/rationalizations

      Add to this list – not to forget :
      a few wars here and then sprinkled in between, eg. Libanon I + II and Gaza I + II

  8. HarryLaw says:

    Tzipi Livni told Ahmed Qurei that “I understand the sentiments of the Palestinians when they see the settlements being built. The meaning from the Palestinian perspective is that Israel takes more land, that the Palestinian state will be impossible, the Israel policy is to take more and more land day after day and that at the end of the day we’ll say that it is impossible, we already have the land and cannot create the state”. So say’s the Israeli “moderate” with the revelations in the Palestinian papers, that moderate who was responsible for cast lead and who the UK insist should not be prosecuted for war crimes under universal jurisdiction, they even changed the UK law to accommodate her and her fellow criminals, still with the Arab world in turmoil and the US puppets Saudi Arabia fomenting sectarianism and arming Islamic jihad in Syria and more generally involved in counter revolution in the Arab world simply to protect their crowns, Israel will make hay while the sun shines.

  9. At what stage is Israel in?
    The Hasbara is wearing off and people around the globe are seeing Israel more clearly than in the past.

    By the way my congratulations to all of you supporters of Israel, you guys sure did succeed.

    Israel is a pariah state.
    how about an apartheid state?

    Note below that this document is from Herzliya and it uses the term jewish lobby.

    Famed Harvard Professor speaking at 7th Annual Herzliya Conference

    Speaking via satellite to the 7th Herzliya Conference of The Institute for Policy and Strategy (IPS) at the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya, Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz warned Israel that they might have to go it alone in the coming years.

    He pointed to 4 recent events that, according to Dershowitz, could bring about a “perfect storm” in the otherwise close relations between the U.S. & Israel.

    The first event was the publishing of Former president Jimmy Carter’s book “Palestine: Peace not Apartheid” about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This book has received a lot of attention and despite the panning it took in the media; Dershowitz says it legitimizes certain negative stereotypes including the “Jewish controlled media” and the disproportional involvement by the Jewish lobby in American politics. This, according to Dershowitz is coming from a man (Carter) who’s received millions of dollars from anti-Israel & anti-Semitic organizations.

    The second event is the rise of anti-Israel discussions in academic circles and on campuses around the U.S.. This legitimizes in the academia what Carter’s book legitimizes publicly. The “trash academics” as Dershowitz called it is becoming more prevalent. This could threaten the education of future American leaders.

    The third event is the Media War being fought by Hizbullah & Hamas against Israel. The battle for media attention is being fought in earnest by these and other anti-Israel groups. Dershowitz did not voice his opinion as to which side is winning that war but made it clear that it is an important factor in U.S./Israel relations.

    Finally, a recent statement from Former Democratic Presidential Candidate and Supreme Allied Commander of NATO in Europe, General Wesley Clark recently hinted at Jewish involvement in U.S. foreign policy by saying “New York ‘money people’ are pushing the U.S. into war with Iran”.

    All of these events point to statements that in the past wouldn’t only be heard in Europe. Dershowitz’s advised Israel & Jewish groups to continue to fight against the negative image that is being perpetrated by these and other factors but he also warned that “Israel must be prepared to lose American support in the coming years both diplomatically and economically. “My message to Israel is ‘be strong’ and be prepared to go it alone.”

  10. sardelapasti says:

    “Israel must be prepared to lose American support in the coming years both diplomatically and economically. “My message to Israel is ‘be strong’ and be prepared to go it alone.”

    We knew that the Trash was delusional but not to the point of needing immediate internment. That can’t be serious! “Israel” going it alone without the US for, how long? 3 minutes? 5? Even a madman like the Trash must acknowledge that the Zionist entity cannot last alone.

  11. Les says:

    Keeping people focused on the one-state versus the two-state solution is an effective way to get those very same people from paying attention to the daily nonstop ethnic cleansing. Let us give our media credit for doing its part by not reporting on Israel’s ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.

  12. Bantustan-State Solution

    Excluding the 43% of the West Bank that is off-limits to Palestinians (reserved for Jewish-only settlements/councils and roads, closed military bases and zones, Israeli declared nature reserves, areas cut off by separation wall, etc), leaves Palestinians with only 13% of their original homeland. It’s ironic that this is equivalent to the 13% that was forcibly imposed on the indigenous South Africans in the form of 10 Bantustans.

    This leads to the question — how many besieged, walled-in, ghettoized bantustans will the Palestinians end up with?

    In any case, some Palestinians have already adapted. Mahmoud Abbas is the Chief Buthelezi of Israeli Apartheid in the “self-ruled” Area A which comprises 17.2% of the West Bank (equivalent to 3.5% of Palestine).

  13. Nevada Ned says:

    Israel’s actions are aimed at annexation: more precisely, Israeli leaders aim to annex as much land as possible in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, while annexing as few Palestinians as possible. This principle was the basis of the “Allon plan”, named for the former Israeli leader, Yigal Allon. The Allon Plan was first discussed in 1967, right after the Six-Day War. The Allon Plan has its own Wikipedia entry.

    Noam Chomsky understands this point, but most people do not, not even (I suspect) among the readership of Mondoweiss.

    Incidentally, Yigal Allon was a big wheel in the Israeli Labor Party. This fact refutes the erroneous belief, sincerely held by otherwise informed people, that Israel under the Labor Party was wonderful, until those awful right wingers under Menachem Begin took over and ruined everything.

    • chinese box says:

      @Nevada Ned

      Great post. The “Labor as benign” myth is one that’s going to have to be exploded before any real change comes. This will probably won’t happen directly. Instead people will finally realize that Labor is fading into irrelevancy politically so there’s no need to factor them into any future discussions of the conflict. Even Tom Friedman, of all people, has hinted at this recently.

  14. jon s says:

    Phil is correct in saying that the Israeli gov’t is moving towards annexation, but that’s all the more reason to intensify efforts to achieve a two state solution, thus thwarting annexation.
    Focusing on two states -the only reasonable and practical solution at this point- is not a diversion. It’s what we learned from our coach in our first ball game: “Keep your eye on the ball!”.

    • seanmcbride says:

      jon s,

      Phil is correct in saying that the Israeli gov’t is moving towards annexation, but that’s all the more reason to intensify efforts to achieve a two state solution, thus thwarting annexation.

      Since we now know that the “Mideast peace process” and “the two-state solution” were a con game from day one — a delaying tactic designed to provide a cover for the building of Eretz Yisrael — we also now know that any continuation of this charade is going to get us nowhere.

      Israel has left the Western democratic world with a single viable option: cut off all economic, political and military aid to Israel. And that’s just for starters.

      Fool me once….

  15. talknic says:

    Continued US support for Israel’s demands on the Palestinians will put the US in breach of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1934) , ratified by the US … link to cfr.org

    Points emphasized here link to blogs.forward.com

    Suggest folk mention this issue when and where ever possible…

  16. NickJOCW says:

    I am doubtful of protestations of unbreakable affection because they are often simply attempts to paper over cracks, as indeed is the insistent claim to shared values with the implication that such values are necessarily both good and shared in some exclusive manner whereas in fact most of them are also shared with rattle snakes. Israel’s relationship to the US is more that of an expensive mistress increasingly fearful of being ditched and ever needing to be reassured with new charge cards and trips to the military Boucheron.

    • Bumblebye says:

      Excellent analogy, especially when considering the *written* treaties between USA and its *real* allies, and the non-existence of same with Israel. If Israel is the ‘mistress’, then are its politicians the bastards clamouring for recognition and rights to which they’re not remotely entitled? Or just rotten bastards?

  17. Talkback says:

    “Endless ‘debate over two-state solution’ is cover for the real story, annexation of West Bank”.

    From Israel’s new speak dictionary:
    “two-state-solution”: bantustans for gentiles.
    “peace process”: conquest without resistance.

  18. mikeo says:

    Guardian “Likud members call for Israeli annexation of West Bank territories”

    link to guardian.co.uk

    How long until this becomes the consensus opinion on the situation in Israel…

    2 state solution dead

    Annexation imminent

    What to do?

    NIE predictions not looking good for Israel for some time now

  19. Newclench says:

    “I’ve noticed the same thing, from rightwingers and even liberal Zionists…”
    So… the Palestinian political forces, including the PLO, the PNA, Fateh, Palestinian People’s Party, Hadash, Tajamu, and others – are they rightwingers or liberal Zionists?

    • Donald says:

      ” I’ve noticed the same thing, from rightwingers and even liberal Zionists: Keep talking about the need for the two state solution, so that no one talks about land policies that have made it impossible.”

      You left out the rest of the comment. I think Phil is talking about the people who claim to support a 2SS, but constantly make excuses for Israel, say we have to support Israel, oppose pressure on Israel, and attack people who advocate pressure on Israel. People who do this aren’t really in favor of any 2SS that would be acceptable to Palestinians, with the 67 borders with only those changes that Palestinians would accept. They might have bantustans in mind, or they might just be using the 2SS as a shield, something they say they support to establish their liberal credentials, but they don’t mean it.

  20. Citizen says:

    The current Canadian government uses “anti-terrorism” legislation to prevent a dialysis machine from being sent to Gaza but encourages, through tax write-offs, donations to illegal settlements that have terrorized and displaced thousands of Palestinians.

  21. Les says:

    I see this has appeared in today’s Common Dreams. I hope it adds to Mondoweiss followers.