and for that, alone, needs to be stopped. Anti-Israelism is just a form of anti-Americanism, as Alan Dershowitz, the moral conscience of American foreign policy, has pointed out.

I seem to recall him going so far as to accuse Sanders of being "self-hating," but I can't find the link. Lots of other crap though. For instance, Bernie's a bad evil person because he apparently aligns more with J-street, which ericson believes is anti-Israel

Which is fucking hilarious to anyone who doesn't regard Im Tirtzu as an example of "political moderates"

Good to see she's maintaining that long record.

It also reinforces my belief that if she becomes the next President, there won't be a two-state solution.

1967 as decided in several UN resolutions.

Anything less would make a Palestinian state non-viable, and there's no point in creating a state that won't be able to function as one.

While I believe that it's morally wrong to remove people of one ethnicity to make place for another, a two-state solution is not possible if the 600 000 settlers should stay. It's a bit of a dilemma - either the settlements or the two-state solution but not both. I can't see HRC criticizing or pressuring Israel in any way that would force Israel to change the current status quo, which will lead to a one-state solution by default.

If 600 000 settlers would have to move to Israel to make the two-state solution possible, do you think it would be worth it, and should Israel be pressured into making them move? Or am I just framing the whole issue wrong?

Everyone knows full well it's the PA/Hamas that doesn't want a peaceful 2 state solution.

They are the ones who need to be pressured.

Last edited Sat May 14, 2016, 07:55 AM - Edit history (1)

....as a Jewish state because they want Israel gone. Anything short of a deal that leaves Israel virtually defenseless they will reject.

They need to be pressured to do the right thing for their people that would end settlements, occupation, and fake apartheid claims forever.

If they keep listening to folks like yourself, the Palestinians will never have their own state.

If Israel offers a square foot of Negev Desert, they can get another square foot of Desert in return. Besides, it won't alleviate the problems the settlements cause by strangling the Palestinian economy and preventing any expansion of communities.

Every single settlement is built in the wrong place, and not a single of them can stay without making a Palestinian state less viable. If you don't believe me, you can always check the map:


Source: http://peacenow.org.il/eng/content/november-2011-map-settlements-west-bank-and-east-jerusalem

Every time I look at the map, I scratch my head, because I always reach the same conclusion: It's either the settlements or the two-state solution, but not both. Israel can't keep any settlements if there's going to be a two-state solution.

I must say that I seriously doubt Hillary Clinton's commitment to a two state solution - she's unwilling to criticize the settlements, and at the same time she's extremely critical of those who do in the form of BDS, a shown in the OP. Her stance makes a two-state solution impossible.

Giving a Palestinian state a few square miles of desert won't make it more contiguous or even remotely viable. Any development in these amazing new areas won't change the facts that all communities in the West Bank and Jerusalem are isolated from each other, have nowhere to expand and have no access to resources.

There are more than a few serious reports detailing the problems of the economy in the occupied territories, but there's not a single viability study of a two-state solution with the settlements remaining. Perhaps it's because the settlements completely prevent a viable two-state solution?

Anyway, here are some reports on the difficult economic conditions in the occupied territories and their causes:

The economic costs of the Israeli occupation for the occupied Palestinian territory September 2011
Source: The Palestinian Ministry of National Economy and the Applied Research Institute - Jerusalem
http://www.un.org/depts/dpa/qpal/docs/2012Cairo/p2%20jad%20isaac%20e.pdf

East Jerusalem 2015: Facts and Figures
Source: Association for Civil Rights in Israel, May 2015
http://www.acri.org.il/en/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/EJ-Facts-and-Figures-2015.pdf

Palestinian Authority Incurs US$285 Million in Annual Fiscal Losses
Source: The World Bank

Your position on 2 states is closer to that of Hamas than the PA.

of some people you call "pretty much everyone"?

The current situation in the occupied territories is the problem, not the solution. You've shown me absolutely nothing that would prove your point.

All the evidence points towards that the settlements, the occupation and the restrictions are the factors that keep the Palestinian economy and its political system below a sustainable level.

Ex nihilo nihil fit.

Mahmoud Abbas has agreed to land swaps and so have the Saudis in their Arab Peace Plan which you once supported (but maybe not now).

Under any President.

The best outcome will be the Zionist Union plan , unilateral withdrawal and imposition of borders .That will be the only solution possible.Hamas will reject it and anything else too, but that's what will happen anyway.

Zionist Union is about to cease to exist :

There have been various incarnations of that idea ... It's what Kadims did in Gaza... And after that Oren suggested it too then ZU...

A solution that results in only one functioning state in the former Palestine Mandate is the one-state solution by definition, and Israel will be just as responsible for the welfare of the Palestinians living there as they've been since 1967. The only result will be that the Apartheid in the West Bank becomes permanent.

They (Hamas and the PLO) can try to act as helpless as possible but the best they could argue at that point is they have a border dispute going on with Israel. They're sovereign at that point and Israel is done with them.

There are lots of border disputes in the world but no one says anyone is occupying other states due to that.

Seems you just can't let go of the occupation - even when Israel ends it. Don't you have other hobbies other than obsessing with what the Jewish state does?

way out?

That doesn't sound very feasible.

That some people call it an occupation is nothing but another deliberate anti-Israel lie & distortion meant to stoke hatred/violence against Jews.

military jurisdiction and their welfare is Israel's responsibility.

I don't remember any UN resolutions declaring Gaza free from occupation...

Where do you get Gaza is under Israeli military jurisdiction? Hamas would disagree as they are the ruling military power there (which they would not be if Israel occupied Gaza). Also, Gaza's welfare isn't Israel's responsibility anymore than it is Egypt's. For an occupation to take place under International Law, Israel must maintain effective control in Gaza....meaning they are the police & government, not Hamas and it is Israel that controls the borders (including the one with Egypt).

I think you know better but you'll probably continue with these ridiculous lies.

where we really have any policy goals, ambitions, or plans.

It's a shitshow, and it's not going to get any better during her lifetime.

A few perfunctory UN vetoes here and there to cater to domestic political considerations, but the rest of the world is going to plan on dealing with that situation without our help, since we can't be of any help.

Israel will continue to be a US ally until it becomes too toxic due to the apartheid state that already exists in the west bank.