edthespark: “So j.ofir what was your idea of a “palestine”.Where is the better plan my man.Got some more un “mandate”.There are no coincidences.The deal is on.It will happen.”
My “idea” of a “Palestine” is either a compromise version on 22% of historical Palestine, that is relinquishing the Israeli 1967 occupation fully, a return of Palestinian refugees (or compensation if anyone chooses), and also equal rights to Palestinians in Israel. All this in accordance with international law and democratic norms.
And if Israel refuses, or deems this impossible – a one democratic state on all of historical Palestine, equal rights to all, return of refugees. The latter is the preferred solution, since Israel has proven utterly unwilling as to the first.
None of this will be arrived at through Israeli good will, so international pressure must be a vehicle towards it, through Boycotts, Divestments and Sanctions.
Thanks Just, I’ve noticed. I know I’ve already said this in the piece, but it needs to be reemphasized:
The thrust of these protest is NOT to defend democracy, but to defend “Jewish and Democratic” – and that is very different from democracy. It is all about Zionism, and it’s called, in more precise terms a “racial democracy”. As Richard Falk and Virginia Tilley wrote in their excellent UN commissioned report on Israeli Apartheid (2017:
In other words, the main motivator of these protests is racism, although it seems to be about democracy. Therefore, as Naama Katii also noted, it is not surprising that these protests bear the more explicitly racist odor.
Zionists know very well, how much their veil of ‘Democracy’ means. It lets the project continue with a false aura of liberalism. It is only sad, that so many hail this veil as if it was the real thing.
edthespark, it would appear to me that you are once again being ironic – am I right?
“George bisharat is a wonderful person and an inspiration for the down trodden.Just a pity there were not more people like him before 1948”.
But Bisharat wrote:
“Israeli Jews must recognize the equal rights of the Palestinians with whom they cohabit the land to secure a peaceful future. Doing so would certainly come with benefits for Israel, including regional acceptance.”
The problem, as it seems to me, is that there were not enough Zionists before 1948 who believed in that. There seemed to be some who did, but whatever political power they yielded was not enough to curtail the thrust of the eliminationist labor-Zionism of Ben Gurion, not to speak of Behin and Shamir’s Revisionism, and they were taken out of political influence from 1948.
The problem has not really been Palestinians, but Zionism.
Zionism was an is a colonialist enterprize. Whether any version of it could have been workable, I seriously doubt, in as far as I view settler-colonialism as inherently eliminationist.
But there is a way forward. It certainly involves abolishing Zionist Apartheid.
It will involve great belief and sincerity, and the privileged Zionist ironic cynics will be the least of help in this.
Nathan, the fact of projecting ‘final status’ agreements does not mean that international law disappears.
As you may know, the Oslo agreements were but an interim agreement, by which Israel would withdraw from occupied territories within 5 years, and a final agreement on outstanding issues would be made. But as you may also know, Israel did not follow through, and when Israel subsequently made its supposed ‘generous offers’ (which were never concessions from what it was entitled to, only from what it coveted), then the Palestinians have been blamed.
So that’s brought many Palestinians to the conclusions, that this talk is really a waste of time. And that’s basically why we have BDS. Because without a shift in power relations through external pressure, all this just gives Israel time for further dispossession.
And that’s really the only game in town. The rest is basically a waste of time.
edthespark: “Palestinian refugees will be naturalized in the countries they reside in.Those countries will receive cash and infrastructure.That is no sellout.That is the solution.Better than the bullshit that was recycled for the last few decades[.]Mondoweiss comments..between you and me,it is all just conjecture,right.”
First, this particular topic admittedly contains some conjecture, as we have not had the plan officially revealed yet, but there have been many indications. This does not suggests that “Mondoweiss comments… is all just conjecture”. A lot of it is reasonable a fact-based discussion which I find worthy and challenging.
Now, concerning refugees: There is ample indication that the Trump team is bent on taking the Palestinian refugee matter “off the table”, just as it was Trump’s idea that he was taking Jerusalem “off the table” by endorsing Israel’s illegal annexation of it.
But that stuff is make believe. To say it’s juvenile is an understatement. It’s like saying “so what, someone stole your stuff? I’m saying it’s ok, and that’s it, it’s off the table”. It doesn’t work like that with international law, you see.
About refugees – the Trump team has defunded UNRWA, and made it pretty clear that it also wants to take that “off the table”, also in not recognizing refugee rights of descendants. That interpretation of international law is Israel-apologia – it suggests that the Palestinian refugees are the only ones in the world where such rights pass on to descendants – and that is a lie.
So now, you’re suggesting that if it’s about paying countries off to naturalize Palestinians (if it is), then this is “no sellout”. But the Palestinian right of return is enshrined in international law, and is a personal right. It’s not for you, or for Trump, to sell it out, as it were (and yes, it would be a sell-out of rights). You see edthespark, if we allow for such bartering, selling out of rights, “taking things off the table” by unilateral actions brazenly violating international law, then we are rendering international law meaningless. If you permit this as ‘practical’, then you essentially permit ethnic cleansing to be perpetrated in the future – no big deal, as it were – at some point someone will come by with cash and make a deal of the century and take the issue off the table…
Edthespark (to me): “Tell me something,how much exactly will the Palestinians be getting in handouts.a billion or a trillion.You don’t know do you, well lets wait and see.”
Well, actually I do know, according to the leak reports that I cite. You could know too, easily, if you but clicked on the first link, to Allison Deger’s coverage. Here it tells you precisely:
‘The deal includes significant financial support from the U.S., Europe and the Gulf states to the new Palestinian state, to a tune of $30 billion over five years, with additional support for specific development projects from Australia, Canada, Japan and South Korea. Most of the funding will come from “oil producing countries,” described as “the main beneficiaries of this agreement.”’
But you seem to be saying rhetorically, that I don’t know what I’m talking about. Maybe I was generalising, so as to drive a point?
But you want the details – because just imagine, if it was a “million dollars for each Palestinian”. Are you now deciding on their behalf that this would be great and fair? Indeed you continue:
“Lets say a million dollars for each person displaced in 1948.would that be ok with you.”
– are we now bartering on behalf of Palestinian refugees? If you had read the same mentioned link, you’d see that Palestinian refugees are completely absent from the document.
So let’s not start selling out Palestinians, you and me, here on Mondoweiss comments. There are enough people trying to do that already.
“Madonna is a not a cruel, uncaring person. Maybe if she knew the extent of Israel’s crimes, she too would care more for a just settlement for Palestine.”
It’s because she trusts Americans for Peace Now to inform her about how ‘peace’ can be achieved. Now look at what Yossi Alpher, who writes weekly security Q&A’s for Americans for Peace Now, expresses himself:
“[A] major Israeli military offensive to reconquer the Gaza Strip and physically eliminate the Islamists there… is undoubtedly feasible. Countless politicians, including Netanyahu, have periodically promised to do precisely this. But then they confront the reality that this scenario would almost certainly involve hundreds of Israeli dead and would leave Israel responsible for the welfare of over two million Gazans under a new occupation.”
When Palestinian civil society urged her to cancel, she ignored it because it had a “political agenda”. I don’t think she’s stupid – I think she picked her side, and that this makes her indeed cruel and uncaring, under the guise of a peacenik.
‘Trump moved [the embassy] to West [by Israel, the ‘united capital] Jerusalem saying, “In making these announcements, I also want to make one point very clear: This decision is not intended, in any way, to reflect a departure from our strong commitment to facilitate a lasting peace agreement. We want an agreement that is a great deal for the Israelis and a great deal for the Palestinians. We are not taking a position of any final status issues, including the specific boundaries of the Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem, or the resolution of contested borders. Those questions are up to the parties involved.”’
The moving of the embassy is in itself taking a position on final status issues. Jerusalem is one of those. It is Israel’s unilateral annexation, cemented in ‘base law’ (1980) that has made the issue of having an embassy anywhere in Jerusalem, a politically partisan issue, siding with Israel, since the annexation is a flagrant violation of international law, and considered null and void by the UNSC.