Only then can any decisions, resulting in a possible semblance of a peaceful existance begin for all who live in the region.

This is the endgame. "An amicable divorce."

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1134137168

There’s a lot more somewhat unstable to definitely unstable countries’ political and economic situations.

Fortunately, these “unstable “ areas are spread out. — some other countries are the “stabilizing “ ones.

edit: grammar not too good. will fix later

where all the jews have converted to southern baptistry or died.

https://endtimesmessages.com/the-third-temple-is-being-built-in-jerusalem-2020/

That will break the log jam and lead to meaningful dialog.

Let me tell you that Israel cannot continue like this forever: Politically, Israel is painting itself into a corner, evermore reducing the range and number of policies it CAN implement.

Just like Venezuela moved down a slippery-slope of bad economic decisions, Israel has moved down a slippery-slope of bad ethnic decisions. It has boxed itself in and it has already limited the spectrum of which ethnic policies future israeli governments can implement.

Israel is concerned with protecting the present, but they are sacrificing the future for that.

They painted themselves in the corner from the very beginning, especially Hamas. Let’s not forget that Hamas violently rejects a multi-ethnic, multi-religious Israel so exactly why is it solely Israel’s fault that that door has been closed?

Hamas rejects the very existence of a Jewish state. They will only settle for a Muslim state where everyone is under sharia law. You are criticizing Israel for not adopting positions that their opponents are not even advocating for.

" What kind of country does Israel WANT to be? "

The answer depends on which kind of Israeli politically you are asking .

Our current PM believes in the "status quo."

Which is neither here nor there .

Ref : https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-the-deception-and-the-myth-of-the-status-quo-1.10155018

For many years now the preferred government policy toward the Palestinians has been to maintain the status quo, without the headache of negotiations and breakthroughs; maintaining what already exists, and that’s all. Military occupation forever. Benjamin Netanyahu turned this idea into his flagship policy. Naftali Bennett, it now turns out, intends to leverage this approach even more forcefully. In an interview with the New York Times this week, he described how his government would maintain a “balance”: on one hand not annexing, on the other hand not allowing a Palestinian state to be established.

A freeze that benefits everyone? Certainly not. The situation on the ground serves only the opponents of a two-state solution. Proof of this could be found in Bennett’s own words, when he said that along with the supposed freeze, Israel will continue to expand settlements in the name of “natural growth.” Palestinians allegedly will also be allowed to build in “existing towns and villages,” meaning Israel will continue its illegal expansion, since that is what already exists, and the Palestinians will remain in their own domain.

If your asking me .....I want an Israel where my grandchildren dont have to join the army like I and their great grandparents and my husband had to .

The religious right wing control our destiny , there is nothing they are not capable of .

If your asking me ....the only solution is for the world to treat us as they did with South Africa during apartheid.

You acknowledge the political diversity of Israeli politics, a diversity that was sorely lacking in South Africa during apartheid, yet, in the same breath, you propose to treat Israel in the same way as South Africa was treated then.

Never mind that apartheid is based on race and by this measure alone is not applicable to the situation in Israel, never mind that apartheid is a hierarchical model of discrimination within South Africa codified by law, never mind that South Africa, being a singular sovereign state that did not occupy territories of any other state, was not bound by international law to keep the people of occupied territories separate and apart from the people of the occupying power, never mind a multitude of other less prominent factors that have no parallels between South Africa and Israel... how can anyone seriously suggest that the world as a whole ought to apply the same measures to two completely unrelated sovereign entities that are miles, cultures, decades and circumstances apart to achieve... what, exactly?

It would be just as insane as treating hemorrhoids with the same medication as syphilis and expecting the same results.

which I notice you have not .
So what do you think our future is ????

Let me rephrase .
It is my opinion that left to our own devices there will never be a Two State Solution to the Israeli/Palestinian
conflict .

From the Haaretz link :

Apart from Meretz our politicians give only lip service to a Two State Solution .
We are already living in a one state reality only its called the " status quo " without any voting rights .

So lets agree to leave South Africa out of the discussion .

What I should have said was that without International condemnation and/or boycotts and sanctions
there will never be a Two State Solution therefore there will never be Peace in the Middle East .
And my great grandchildren will be going to the army to support those that believe in a Greater Israel
promised to them by God .

Last edited Mon Jan 31, 2022, 09:57 AM - Edit history (1)

I don't have the answer to the question raised in it. But I do have the answer to the issue you raised.

Israel has been subject to international condemnation of one sort or another, most consistently coming from the Arab states and Iran, for nearly its entire modern history, and this condemnation has been destructive rather than constructive for the prospects of a two-state solution as well as peace in the region generally. History repeatedly shows that condemnation alone is completely inadequate. On the other hand, Israel can not possibly be left to its own devices: it is self-evident that two parties are required to achieve a two state solution. If there were a second party willing to accept a two-state solution, we would have had two states in 1948. Or 1980. Instead, the Palestinians did not recognize Israel as a legitimate negotiating party until 1988, and the world (as represented by United Nations) didn't endorse a two state solution until 2000. Today, over 60% of the Palestinians in the West bank and Gaza still reject a two-state solution, and I am not even talking about Hamas, whose charter explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel.

if international condemnation is to take place, it would have to be directed at ALL the parties that resist a two state solution without discrimination, commensurate to the degree of resistance exhibited by those parties. This will require the end of singling Israel out for condemnation. Otherwise it will once again be a disingenuous proposition lacking any merit. But this is not nearly enough. In South Africa, it took the transformative determination of both DeKlerk and Mandella to end apartheid. While I can easily see Israel produce a DeKlerk figure (we've had Rabin, Barak and even Sharon as examples), I cannot conceive of the Palestinian leadership producing a Mandella figure to match, as long as they remain a pawn in the hands of the competing Shiah/Sunni regional powers using the Palestinians for their own gains without regard to the Paletinian people themselves.

Rabin, Barak and even Sharon were a very long time ago ....and what about Olmert ??

There is no DeKlerk fiqure within Israeli politics today that is willing or able to stand against the power of
the settlers ......I wish there was .

Actually they have their Mandella figure .....his name is Marwan Barghouti.

See : https://newint.org/columns/viewfrom/2007/11/01/view-from-tel-aviv/

An opinion of a single Israeli peacenick published fifteen years ago in an obscure British left-wing publication (worldwide circulation of 25,000) declaring him to be the Palestinian Mandella doesn't make him one. Having said this, if Barghouti can move the Palestinian sentiment one single bit towards a negotiated settlement for the two-state solution, I sincerely wish him all the luck in the world. But as of today, Barghouti's efforts in this direction remain at zero, with no signs of any movement. He is struggling to emerge as a unifying figure among Palestinians in the occupied territories, let alone gain any standing of authority in Israel proper.

I agree that there is no DeKlerk figure in Israeli politics today, and I never claimed there is one. What you quoted me say was that, based on past precedents (with the time frame of activity of the named individuals being immaterial to my point), I can see one emerge from among Israel's political leadership. Something I don't see happening with a Mandella figure emerging from among Palestinian leadership. So, to answer the rhetorical question in your header, yes, really. No chance. There is simply no past precedent that would make me the least bit hopeful of this happening any time soon, and Barghouti is no exception.

Wasn't and isn't the opinion of a " single Israeli peacenick " .
Yossi Beilin and Shimon Peres also thought so as well as many from the Israeli
center and left .
Plus Desmond Tutu who nominated him for an Nobel Peace Prize in 2017.
( my apologies for returning to South Africa )

You are welcome to your opinion but it really does not matter what you or I think or
believe or any Israeli or any South African .....it matters what the Palestinians think
and believe .

Last edited Tue Feb 1, 2022, 10:07 AM - Edit history (1)

I am looking forward to links where Beilin and Peres compare Barghouti to Mandella. I doubt very much that Tutu, despite his nominating Barghouti, compared him to Mandella either, or even suggested he has full support of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories.

None of this, however, reflects on Barghouti's standing, ability, or even willingness to negotiate a two state settlement with Israel on behalf of the Palestinian people. Not only is he not an established representative of the Palestinian people, he is vehemently opposed to the very existence of the State of Israel. You don't believe that Israel is open to the proposition of dissolving itself, do you? Our respective opinions don't matter, but we can both safely assume that this part is not negotiable under any two-state framework, can't we?

But we are digressing here. The issue you raised was how practical the prospects of negotiating a two-state solution are, and what it will take to move the negotiations forward. My response was that, based on past precedents, it is possible and likely to find a bona fide negotiating partner in Israeli leadership, but it is extremely unlikely, again, based on existing precedent, to find such figure in the Palestinian leadership. I also gave a reason for this: the Palestinian leadership is being manipulated by the Shiah/Sunni interests in their struggle for regional dominance at the expense of the Palestinian people. As long as we remain blind to whose interests really drive the perpetuation of Palestinian/Israeli conflict, there will be no solution to it.

On edit: And calls to single Israel out for wholesale condemnation only keeps our our eyes closed to the never-ending conflicts within the Muslim world that deliberately perpetuate the status quo the Palestinian people find themselves unable to break.

I will give you one link which I hope you read in full then Im done with this conversation .

Will Marwan Barghouti Be the Palestinian Nelson Mandela?

Source: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/MAGAZINE-is-this-the-palestinian-mandela-1.5403803

Barghouti may believe in a two state solution, but his rhetoric doesn't match his record. To my knowledge, he failed to condemn a single Hamas action against the civilian population of his prospective negotiating partner, for instance. His beliefs notwithstanding, the count of his contributions to a two-state solution remain at zero.

And, as a measure of Barghouti's failure to deliver, here is an excerpt from the 2016 follow-up included in the article you linked to, from an interview with the former PA minister and Barghouti's close associate Fadurah Fares:

It appears I have read the article in fuller detail than you may have wished for. Fifteen years after the original story, and Barghouti's closest associates are still looking forward to a few more months of training to conduct a non-violent struggle... makes me wonder how Hamas, who, despite Barghouti's resounding expectations, have yet to join his call for non-violence, is doing on this front. And, as a consequence, the resounding answer to the provocative question posed in the article is, hell no, he will not! At least not in the foreseeable future, which, I must admit, may be a pretty short period of time by local standards of the region.

But once again, I digress. Barghouti is a side issue to my argument and, as I have pointed out a number of times, has no material bearing on it. If you refuse to address the essence of my argument and keep deflecting to Barghouti, ending this conversation is something I can wholeheartedly agree with.