- Joined
- Sep 15, 2013
- Messages
- 8,320
- Reaction score
- 4,122
- Location
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
These sources, the Moshe Dayan quote and so on all seem to point towards the same thing.Valaisee:
Here are two documents out
Innit what the State of Israel has been doing.
The Roots of Israel’s Annexation Policy
Although Israel/Palestine has two peoples with two different deeply rooted rights to the land, there is only one international consensus. Peace begins there.carnegieendowment.org
Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
"For now, it works out. Let's say the truth. We want peace. If there is no peace, we will maintain military rule..."
There was no peace. Jordan continued to claim the West Bank into the 1980s; Egypt was actually suspended from the Arab League for a decade for daring to agree to peace with Israel! There was little or no support among the Arab countries nor presumably the Palestinians for a two-state solution recognizing Israel alongside Palestine. So in the 80s Israel claimed East Jerusalem. Essentially took it off the table. Maybe it could have been back on the table if the 1990s talks had worked out, but now? Pretty sure it's gone. It's Israel's.
I haven't seen any reasonable alternative to this fact: Faced with otherwise irreconcilable differences, the most plausible hope of a deal is for one side to unilaterally back down and make more compromises, or to be gradually pushed back and made to accept an 'unfair' deal as better than no deal at all. Certainly easier to get one side to back down than two sides, right?
Jerusalem may not be negotiable any more. The settlements were always negotiable. "Creeping annexation," your links call them. Sounds about right. Israel might roll back a few years' or even a decade's worth of expansion, but expecting that the Palestinian governments could continue actively or tacitly supporting the fighting, continue denying Israel's legitimacy, continue holding out to get everything they want in a deal, for decade after decade without anything ever really changing and always having the 1967 lines as an immutable fallback position seems totally unrealistic.
Neither side has particularly respected international law before now - least of all the Arab groups when Israel was at its most vulnerable - so with decades of failure already lying behind outside calls to impose those one-size-fits-all prescriptions on all parties involved, seems to me that groups which continue calling for the same thing expecting a different result are really indicating more interest in the nice soundbites and virtuous appearance of lawfulness than in an actually plausible solution.