Israeli forces storm and fire on Al Aqsa mosque

[Pyro]

https://twitter.com/lummideast/status/1392171365218897924

[lfromnj]

So what exactly are the Sheikh Jarrah evictions?

Is it just following basic property laws such as what would be done in the US or is it different?

[Velasco]

Just reading the statements of the apartheid state's army spokesperson (quoted by Haaretz and Reuters). He cynically says, on the last bombings over the open-air prison called Gaza:

"We expect that this poweful attack on the high-rise building,  which shock all of Gaza, will lead to extensive shooting towards Israel"

Yet another sample of perfect symbiosis between Hamas and the apartheid state. The sequence is the usual: Hamas launches rockets causing little to none casualties, while the powerful army of Israel retaliates with an ordeal of destruction killing innocent civilians in the process. Meanwhile the attention is diverted from the protests in East Jerusalem and other places. From what I'm gathering Palestinian protestors mostly despise Fatah and Hamas, especially the younger

I've read the apartheid state's security forces threw grenades to protestors in Haifa, while the following happens in Ramla

https://twitter.com/edokonrad/status/1392188874743451648?s=19

There are more reports in the same fashion

At this point keeping the fiction of a "Israel-Palestine conflict", or sham "two-state solutions", is an insult to intelligence. This is not a matter of self-determination, but a constant abuse of the basic human rights of 1/2 of the population under Israeli control. The state of Israel rules everything between the Jordan and the Sea and will never withdraw from the West Bank, let alone East Jerusalem. The only way to ensure the Jewish character of the existing state is through the disenfranchisement of most Palestinians. This political regime, based on on the privileged status and the supremacy of one ethnic or religious group over another, is not a democracy. Israel-Palestine will never be a democratic state until everyone living in that country has the same legal status and is protected from abuse by the same set of laws.

[Donerail]

So what exactly are the Sheikh Jarrah evictions?

Is it just following basic property laws such as what would be done in the US or is it different?

No, there's an important distinction with US law. In this case, a pro-settlement organization is attempting to claim that the land was Jewish-owned before 1948, so it should be given to Jewish families today, regardless of the fact that Palestinian families have been living there for several decades now. Under Israeli law, Palestinians are prohibited from reclaiming property lost in the Nakba, while Israeli Jews are permitted to re-claim properties lost at the same time.

Under US law, this would be impermissible. The doctrine of adverse possession allows you to take legal possession of property you've been using so long as various conditions are met (possession has to be hostile, actual, exclusive, open and notorious, for a set period of time). If this was happening in the US, the Palestinian families would be able to claim title to the land they currently occupy (just as current residents of Israel would be able to claim title to the land they currently occupy, even if it was owned by Palestinians pre-1948), because they've been there long enough and hit the requirements for adverse possession. I'm not sure how Israeli law on adverse possession works (if it exists at all), or how it interacts with the laws I mentioned in the first graf, but it seems like it hasn't been talked about much in regard to this situation, so I assume it doesn't apply.

[lfromnj]

So what exactly are the Sheikh Jarrah evictions?

Is it just following basic property laws such as what would be done in the US or is it different?

No, there's an important distinction with US law. In this case, a pro-settlement organization is attempting to claim that the land was Jewish-owned before 1948, so it should be given to Jewish families today, regardless of the fact that Palestinian families have been living there for several decades now. Under Israeli law, Palestinians are prohibited from reclaiming property lost in the Nakba, while Israeli Jews are permitted to re-claim properties lost at the same time.

Under US law, this would be impermissible. The doctrine of adverse possession allows you to take legal possession of property you've been using so long as various conditions are met (possession has to be hostile, actual, exclusive, open and notorious, for a set period of time). If this was happening in the US (at least in most states), the Palestinian families would be able to claim title to the land they currently occupy. I'm not sure how Israeli law on adverse possession works (if it exists at all), or how it interacts with the laws I mentioned in the first graf, but it seems like it hasn't been talked about much in regard to this situation, so I assume it doesn't apply.

Was there a reason said property wasn't claimed like say in 1970?

I do know there would have been some shaky stuff dealing with Jordan I assume during that period.

IMO the issue isn't the eviction itself but rather how its unequal as parrotguy mentioned.

[Velasco]

There are reports of dozens of tanks on the main road heading south towards Gaza, possibly anticipating more retaliations and new ordeals of destruction.

Apparently a rocket from Gaza reached a bus compound in Tel Aviv. A crowd chants "death to the Arabs" while a local commander speaks to TV

Reported clashes between Arabs and Jews in Acre and Lod

Benny Gantz orders border police forces under military command,  usually deployed in the West Bank, to deploy to Lod and other ethnically mixed locations

https://twitter.com/simonerzim/status/1392226078727540737?s=19


Some people wonder if these events anticipate the third intifada, or a civil war within Israel-Palestine

[Donerail]

No, there's an important distinction with US law. In this case, a pro-settlement organization is attempting to claim that the land was Jewish-owned before 1948, so it should be given to Jewish families today, regardless of the fact that Palestinian families have been living there for several decades now. Under Israeli law, Palestinians are prohibited from reclaiming property lost in the Nakba, while Israeli Jews are permitted to re-claim properties lost at the same time.

Under US law, this would be impermissible. The doctrine of adverse possession allows you to take legal possession of property you've been using so long as various conditions are met (possession has to be hostile, actual, exclusive, open and notorious, for a set period of time). If this was happening in the US (at least in most states), the Palestinian families would be able to claim title to the land they currently occupy. I'm not sure how Israeli law on adverse possession works (if it exists at all), or how it interacts with the laws I mentioned in the first graf, but it seems like it hasn't been talked about much in regard to this situation, so I assume it doesn't apply.

Was there a reason said property wasn't claimed like say in 1970?

I do know there would have been some shaky stuff dealing with Jordan I assume during that period.

IMO the issue isn't the eviction itself but rather how its unequal as parrotguy mentioned.

As far as I can tell (and I haven't done a ton of research into this), the 1970 law permitting Israeli families to reclaim legal title to land owned prior to 1948 was primarily used at the time to claim unoccupied property — when that changed, and whether this changed b/c of a changing interpretation of the law or different political conditions, I'm not sure.

[Velasco]

The account of Míriam Barghouti was temporarily banned in Twitter. She depicts a tense environment between protestors and security forces at Bet El settlement. Barghouti writes in another tweet the"PA thugs" tried to demoralize protestors, but young Palestinians headed towards Beit El

https://twitter.com/MariamBarghouti/status/1392220189706657804?s=19

[Statilius the Epicurean]

More broadly than the particular legal issues in this individual case, the eviction it is part of a decades-long strategy of the Israeli government to make control of East Jerusalem a fait accompli in any peace negotiation through 'facts on the ground': formal annexation, denial of construction and housing permits to Palestinians while allowing Israelis to build, cutting off East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank with the separation barrier and ringfencing the outskirts with settlements, and yeah demolitions and evictions of Palestinian neighbourhoods like in Sheikh Jarrah currently. The policy is to make East Jerusalem inhospitable to Palestinians and so in the long term cement Jerusalem as a Jewish city. That's why it's kicked off this firestorm.

[Comrade Funk]

The United States ofc is complicit in these crimes. More hypocritically, the Democratic Party leadership which claims "Black Lives Matter" and promotes civil rights here but supports unconditional military aid for this regime. Grow some ing balls. We're the country with the leverage.

[Pyro]

Detestable.

https://twitter.com/_waleedshahid/status/1392233800478990337

[Red Velvet]

Increasingly their long-term strategy is hope the Republican Party wins/rigs every election so that they face no consequences.
https://twitter.com/barakravid/status/1391427428749295618

Making their support partisan is a pretty terrible idea, it makes it part of the American political dichotomy. Israel's support have been a result of being pro-Israel was bipartisan. If they make it partisan the result will be that automatic 50% of USA's population will be hostile toward Israel. I also think they overestimate the long term pro-Israel attitude of Religious Right.

It’s terrible strategy to fuel conservative Evangelical christians only because they happen to side with Israel more. It makes everyone else who isn’t an evangelical Christian become way more anti-Israel.

Who comes up with these strategies? Juan Guaidó praising Bolsonaro and criticizing Brazilian left only made me certain I didn’t like that guy or recognized him, just like Israel siding with these far-right global leaders and ultra-religious movements gives me motivation to voice more strong anti-Israel opinions.

Good luck trying to convince leftists and progressives to support you while you’re completely siding with the people they’re fighting against in their countries lmao.

[GALeftist]

Detestable.

https://twitter.com/_waleedshahid/status/1392233800478990337

Among other things, the circumstances which led to many Jewish people leaving Europe and other parts of the Middle East were, obviously, absolutely horrific. They ought not to have faced the discrimination and horrible crimes that caused many of them to leave. Stunning to see it be seemingly referenced as a positive here.

[Vosem]

https://twitter.com/ShMMor/status/1391812731074928645

Here is a description of the Israeli state's position in the Sheikh Jarrah dispute. Basically, a large amount of land which was owned by Jews before 1948 in what became Jordanian territory from 1948-1967 was seized by the Jordanian state, which then rented it out to tenants.

After 1967, property owned by the Jordanian state in the West Bank was seized by the Israeli state (except for religious properties like mosques, which Jordan was allowed to retain ownership of, but not sovereignty over, even in East Jerusalem itself¹ -- note that the Al-Aqsa mosque at the heart of this is maintained and run by a Jordanian, not Israeli or Palestinian, organization). Israel had, and maintains, a policy of returning property to pre-1948 owners who are now Israeli citizens or their heirs², but also a policy of respecting leases and tenant agreements entered into by the Jordanian state between 1948-1967.

This creates a weird ticking time bomb, though, where certain buildings, usually in neighborhoods which are heavily Arab today, theoretically eventually belong to the descendants of Jews who owned them before 1948 (99-year leases, as I understand it, are common in this area and it might be logical for some of them to date to the 1960s, so this may be a very slow-moving problem that continues as late as the 2060s). What happened in this specific case was that a hypothetical landowning organization sued over rent nonpayment and achieved eviction, but it looks like the terms of the agreement itself were probably disputed (since the tenant is thought to have a strong case on appeal) and also the hypothetical landowning organization's motive for wanting this property specifically is blatantly religious, which worries some because it would probably be possible on some level to find a Jewish religious motive for wanting almost any particular plot in the West Bank.

¹A remarkably friendly arrangement between two countries that had just been in such a consequential war.
²I don't know if a place like this even exists -- it's a few hundred buildings in Jerusalem that this law covers -- but it'd be interesting to determine if Jordan ever eminent-domain seized some property between 1948-1967 of someone whose heirs are now Arab Israeli citizens. In principle, they could sue.

~~~~

At this point keeping the fiction of a "Israel-Palestine conflict", or sham "two-state solutions", is an insult to intelligence. This is not a matter of self-determination, but a constant abuse of the basic human rights of 1/2 of the population under Israeli control. The state of Israel rules everything between the Jordan and the Sea and will never withdraw from the West Bank, let alone East Jerusalem. The only way to ensure the Jewish character of the existing state is through the disenfranchisement of most Palestinians. This political regime, based on on the privileged status and the supremacy of one ethnic or religious group over another, is not a democracy. Israel-Palestine will never be a democratic state until everyone living in that country has the same legal status and is protected from abuse by the same set of laws.

It is usually right-wing parties in Israel who favor extending an offer of citizenship to Palestinians in the West Bank (Bennett -- still probably Israel's next PM in the near future -- wants to do it specifically for residents of Area C, it was the Likud that extended an offer of citizenship to East Jerusalem Arabs in 1981). Left-wing parties are uniformly opposed. The thing that stops this from happening -- besides international pressure -- is the existence of the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian independence declaration of 1988, and the Israeli government's agreement to cede some control within the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority.

Given 21st-century demographic trends it would not be especially threatening today to the Jewish character of the state to annex the West Bank and give citizenship to every Arab who lives there. It will be even less threatening in 20 years.

What would be threatening is incorporating Gaza: Gaza is a huge Arab city with a sky-high fertility rate and if you include it in "between the Jordan and the Sea" then a Jewish demographic majority is impossible. But there is no reason for Gaza to be part of that state (and as the June 2007 civil conflict showed, Gaza does not even really seem that interested in being part of a state with the West Bank); its history, political preferences, and economy are completely different. Nor is there any particular reason for Israeli ultranationalists to want it, which is why it was easier to withdraw from 2004 than the religiously significant West Bank. There is no reason that, when a government arises there that chooses peace, Gaza couldn't be a prosperous independent port (with extensive natural gas reserves) separate from both Israel and Egypt. Some argument might exist that Israel would have to pay Gaza reparations to apologize for bombing it repeatedly instead of just unilaterally ending the terror of the al-Qassam Brigades.

This is probably the only form of the two-state solution that would work; anything based on modern ethnic borders in the West Bank really does start to look like a bantustan. Ultimately, the first step on the road to peace will be when the Palestinian Authority (and the Israeli state) acknowledge that people in Yatta and Tulkarm, not just al-Quds, deserve the option to have Israeli citizenship.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

https://twitter.com/ShMMor/status/1391812731074928645

Here is a description of the Israeli state's position in the Sheikh Jarrah dispute. Basically, a large amount of land which was owned by Jews before 1948 in what became Jordanian territory from 1948-1967 was seized by the Jordanian state, which then rented it out to tenants.

After 1967, property owned by the Jordanian state in the West Bank was seized by the Israeli state (except for religious properties like mosques, which Jordan was allowed to retain ownership of, but not sovereignty over, even in East Jerusalem itself¹ -- note that the Al-Aqsa mosque at the heart of this is maintained and run by a Jordanian, not Israeli or Palestinian, organization). Israel had, and maintains, a policy of returning property to pre-1948 owners who are now Israeli citizens or their heirs², but also a policy of respecting leases and tenant agreements entered into by the Jordanian state between 1948-1967.

This creates a weird ticking time bomb, though, where certain buildings, usually in neighborhoods which are heavily Arab today, theoretically eventually belong to the descendants of Jews who owned them before 1948 (99-year leases, as I understand it, are common in this area and it might be logical for some of them to date to the 1960s, so this may be a very slow-moving problem that continues as late as the 2060s). What happened in this specific case was that a hypothetical landowning organization sued over rent nonpayment and achieved eviction, but it looks like the terms of the agreement itself were probably disputed (since the tenant is thought to have a strong case on appeal) and also the hypothetical landowning organization's motive for wanting this property specifically is blatantly religious, which worries some because it would probably be possible on some level to find a Jewish religious motive for wanting almost any particular plot in the West Bank.

¹A remarkably friendly arrangement between two countries that had just been in such a consequential war.
²I don't know if a place like this even exists -- it's a few hundred buildings in Jerusalem that this law covers -- but it'd be interesting to determine if Jordan ever eminent-domain seized some property between 1948-1967 of someone whose heirs are now Arab Israeli citizens. In principle, they could sue.

~~~~

At this point keeping the fiction of a "Israel-Palestine conflict", or sham "two-state solutions", is an insult to intelligence. This is not a matter of self-determination, but a constant abuse of the basic human rights of 1/2 of the population under Israeli control. The state of Israel rules everything between the Jordan and the Sea and will never withdraw from the West Bank, let alone East Jerusalem. The only way to ensure the Jewish character of the existing state is through the disenfranchisement of most Palestinians. This political regime, based on on the privileged status and the supremacy of one ethnic or religious group over another, is not a democracy. Israel-Palestine will never be a democratic state until everyone living in that country has the same legal status and is protected from abuse by the same set of laws.

It is usually right-wing parties in Israel who favor extending an offer of citizenship to Palestinians in the West Bank (Bennett -- still probably Israel's next PM in the near future -- wants to do it specifically for residents of Area C, it was the Likud that extended an offer of citizenship to East Jerusalem Arabs in 1981). Left-wing parties are uniformly opposed. The thing that stops this from happening -- besides international pressure -- is the existence of the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian independence declaration of 1988, and the Israeli government's agreement to cede some control within the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority.

Given 21st-century demographic trends it would not be especially threatening today to the Jewish character of the state to annex the West Bank and give citizenship to every Arab who lives there. It will be even less threatening in 20 years.

What would be threatening is incorporating Gaza: Gaza is a huge Arab city with a sky-high fertility rate and if you include it in "between the Jordan and the Sea" then a Jewish demographic majority is impossible. But there is no reason for Gaza to be part of that state (and as the June 2007 civil conflict showed, Gaza does not even really seem that interested in being part of a state with the West Bank); its history, political preferences, and economy are completely different. Nor is there any particular reason for Israeli ultranationalists to want it, which is why it was easier to withdraw from 2004 than the religiously significant West Bank. There is no reason that, when a government arises there that chooses peace, Gaza couldn't be a prosperous independent port (with extensive natural gas reserves) separate from both Israel and Egypt. Some argument might exist that Israel would have to pay Gaza reparations to apologize for bombing it repeatedly instead of just unilaterally ending the terror of the al-Qassam Brigades.

This is probably the only form of the two-state solution that would work; anything based on modern ethnic borders in the West Bank really does start to look like a bantustan. Ultimately, the first step on the road to peace will be when the Palestinian Authority (and the Israeli state) acknowledge that people in Yatta and Tulkarm, not just al-Quds, deserve the option to have Israeli citizenship.

This is a good thought, and an interesting POV I hadn't considered before. Thank you.

[Velasco]

[

Here is a description of the Israeli state's position in the Sheikh Jarrah dispute. Basically, a large amount of land which was owned by Jews before 1948 in what became Jordanian territory from 1948-1967 was seized by the Jordanian state, which then rented it out to tenants.

After 1967, property owned by the Jordanian state in the West Bank was seized by the Israeli state (except for religious properties like mosques, which Jordan was allowed to retain ownership of, but not sovereignty over, even in East Jerusalem itself¹ -- note that the Al-Aqsa mosque at the heart of this is maintained and run by a Jordanian, not Israeli or Palestinian, organization). Israel had, and maintains, a policy of returning property to pre-1948 owners who are now Israeli citizens or their heirs², but also a policy of respecting leases and tenant agreements entered into by the Jordanian state between 1948-1967 (...)

If this is a complex legal situation, try to imagine how to compensate all the heirs of Arab tenants whom lost their properties after thr Nakba on 1948. It's very funny to see the Israelis invoking forgotten agreements with the Jordanian kingdom*,  dissociating them from long-established practices of ethnic cleansing and property seizure throughout all the lands of Israel, from the Jordan to the Sea, and very especially in the self-proclsimed "indivisible capital" of the apartheid state. This is not serious and sounds like an insult to the Palestinian residents,  who are growing increasingly desperate and frustrated at their impossible situation.

* Not to mention these alleged agreements or any other legal pretext invoked by the apartheid authorities are invalid in the present curcumstances,  for East Jerusalem is occupied territory and seizure of property under military occupation is not permitted by international law

 It is usually right-wing parties in Israel who favor extending an offer of citizenship to Palestinians in the West Bank (Bennett -- still probably Israel's next PM in the near future  -- wants to do it specifically for residents of Area C, it was the Likud that extended an offer of citizenship to East Jerusalem Arabs in 1981). Left-wing parties are uniformly opposed. The thing that stops this from happening -- besides international pressure -- is the existence of the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian independence declaration of 1988, and the Israeli government's agreement to cede some control within the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority.

Given 21st-century demographic trends it would not be especially threatening today to the Jewish character of the state to annex the West Bank and give citizenship to every Arab who lives there. It will be even less threatening in 20 years.

What would be threatening is incorporating Gaza: Gaza is a huge Arab city with a sky-high fertility rate and if you include it in "between the Jordan and the Sea" then a Jewish demographic majority is impossible. But there is no reason for Gaza to be part of that state (and as the June 2007 civil conflict showed, Gaza does not even really seem that interested in being part of a state with the West Bank); its history, political preferences, and economy are completely different. Nor is there any particular reason for Israeli ultranationalists to want it, which is why it was easier to withdraw from 2004 than the religiously significant West Bank. There is no reason that, when a government arises there that chooses peace, Gaza couldn't be a prosperous independent port (with extensive natural gas reserves) separate from both Israel and Egypt. Some argument might exist that Israel would have to pay Gaza reparations to apologize for bombing it repeatedly instead of just unilaterally ending the terror of the al-Qassam Brigades.

This is probably the only form of the two-state solution that would work; anything based on modern ethnic borders in the West Bank really does start to look like a bantustan. Ultimately, the first step on the road to peace will be when the Palestinian Authority (and the Israeli state) acknowledge that people in Yatta and Tulkarm, not just al-Quds, deserve the option to have Israeli citizenship.

I beg you again to be serious. If you are correct and right-wing parties are willing to give citizenship to Palestinians in area C in the near future, it's probably because they consider granting second-class citizen status to a few thousands is a reasonable price to pay for the annexation of more than 60% of the territory in the West Bank. I mean "formal annexation", because that land is already theirs. On the other hand, invoking that Likud offered something to the East Jerusalem residents back in 1981 sounds like a bad joke, in the light of recent events. Given the 21st Century trends in Israeli politics,  Likud in 1981 could be the equivalent to present day "centrist" or "left-wing" parties. Invoking the Palestinian declaration of "independence" in 1988 as a pretext to justify status quo is another bad joke, given the inpracticality of exercising self-determination under a brutal military dictatorship. As for the Palestinian Authority, the stance of a Bantustan government is irrelevant and its prestige and legitimacy to speak on behalf of the battered Palestinians are very questionable. Finally, there is no sign from Israeli authorities that suggests they would be willing to grant citizenship to the population of the Bantustans existing in areas A and B. Don't tell lies, please.

Gaza deserves a separate mention. The very existence of Gaza as an open-air prison for more than 2 million of unlucky Palestinians is the most serious crime against humanity commmitted by Israel, alongside the involvement of the IDF in the Sabra and Shatila massacre.  Gaza is historically part of that country between the Jordan and the Sea. There is no conceivable solution to for Israel-Palestine that ignores the situation of Gaza. I beg you again not to invoke false premises like "peace" or "teo-state solution", because Israeli authorities are not interested in them and the latter is impractical.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

¹A remarkably friendly arrangement between two countries that had just been in such a consequential war.

Not really remarkable since King Abdullah and Israel cut a deal to partition Arab Palestine between the two in 1947. Jordan more or less sat out the war.

This is probably the only form of the two-state solution that would work; anything based on modern ethnic borders in the West Bank really does start to look like a bantustan.

A two-state solution will include the dismantling of illegal Israeli settlements plus land swaps to ensure a contiguous Palestinian state. Of course Israeli government policy has been to bantustan Palestinian territory with illegal settlements to make a peace deal more difficult, yes.

As for Gaza, we don't have to guess what the citizens of Gaza want: they want to be part of an independent Palestinian state and have voiced it repeatedly. 

[Libertas Vel Mors]

¹A remarkably friendly arrangement between two countries that had just been in such a consequential war.

Not really remarkable since King Abdullah and Israel cut a deal to partition Arab Palestine between the two in 1947. Jordan more or less sat out the war.

Uh, what? Israel and Jordan fought pretty actively in 1967.

This is probably the only form of the two-state solution that would work; anything based on modern ethnic borders in the West Bank really does start to look like a bantustan.

A two-state solution will include the dismantling of illegal Israeli settlements plus land swaps to ensure a contiguous Palestinian state. Of course Israeli government policy has been to bantustan Palestinian territory with illegal settlements to make a peace deal more difficult, yes.

No realistic two state solution involves the mass dismantling of settlements.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Wrong war sorry

No realistic two state solution involves the mass dismantling of settlements.

And no realistic two state solution does not involve the dismantling of Israeli settlements to ensure a contiguous independent Palestinian state. *shrug*

The idea that a solution could be annexation of some areas of Palestine with offers of citizenship and not others is equally fanciful. East Jerusalem was annexed in 1980 and after 40 years of Israeli domestic administration something like 6% of Palestinians in East Jerusalem have taken up Israeli citizenship.

[Zinneke]

Again, its not my place to speak but I think Western advocacy groups that are pro-Palestine are actually framing the conflict in the wrong way. They are framing it as a national liberation struggle when the key to unlocking the conflict and guaranteeing human rights is to end the incentive of occupation in the first place. You have to tackle the Israeli military-industrial complex, and the incentives of politicians like Netenyahu to stoke the flames (getting rid of him was actually a good priority that failed at the last hurdle). Its the axis of the US-Israel relationship. And then you can counter the grift that is the US Evangelical-Settler movement alliance that comes with it.

That inevitably means an alliance with the Israeli secularists. We're beyond 1 state or 2 state solution, as an Israeli poster I think explained to me (might have been Wallmart_shopper). 1 state or 2 state is just theoretical for the moment. Its in a jigsaw world.

There was a great article by Anat Biletzki* I read in the book on critical perspectives in (western) transnational advocacy. Does anybody seriously think this conflict ends with either population transfers or a single-state solution where every election is an ethnic head count between Arabs and jews? You have to address things step by step like the securitization of things that should be under democratic oversight in Israel or the massive financial incentives of someone like Roman Abramovic to finance the settler movement and launder money in the process. These are actually concrete issues you can build broad coalitions with but instead we're talking about population exchanges and just generalised whataboutery. Unbelievable.

* yes i am aware of the organisation they are associated with, thank you.

[Velasco]

Can we please stop discussing on "peace talks" the "two-state solution"? The latter is completely impractical not going to happen. The more you discuss endlessly about that nonsense, the longer the situation of the Palestinian people under the apartheid regime remains ignored. It's time for a change in your conceptual frameworks regarding Israel-Palestine

The issue concerning the military-industrial complex, alongside the huge influence of the Zionist lobbies in US politics, are of course key questions. It's not possible to put an end to the Israeli versión of apartheid as long as these factors determine US policy towards Israel

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Wrong war sorry

No realistic two state solution involves the mass dismantling of settlements.

And no realistic two state solution does not involve the dismantling of Israeli settlements to ensure a contiguous independent Palestinian state. *shrug*

The idea that a solution could be annexation of some areas of Palestine with offers of citizenship and not others is equally fanciful. East Jerusalem was annexed in 1980 and after 40 years of Israeli domestic administration something like 6% of Palestinians in East Jerusalem have taken up Israeli citizenship.

No, actually. Plenty do.

The idea that a solution could be annexation of some areas of Palestine with offers of citizenship and not others is equally fanciful. East Jerusalem was annexed in 1980 and after 40 years of Israeli domestic administration something like 6% of Palestinians in East Jerusalem have taken up Israeli citizenship.

Sure. But the city's population is also 1/2 Jewish. East Jerusalem and the settlements are Israeli, and that isn't changing any time soon.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Can we please stop discussing on "peace talks" the "two-state solution"? The latter is completely impractical not going to happen. The more you discuss endlessly about that nonsense, the longer the situation of the Palestinian people under the apartheid regime remains ignored. It's time for a change in your conceptual frameworks regarding Israel-Palestine

The issue concerning the military-industrial complex, alongside the huge influence of the Zionist lobbies in US politics, are of course key questions. It's not possible to put an end to the Israeli versión of apartheid as long as these factors determine US policy towards Israel

lol

[Velasco]

Again, its not my place to speak but I think Western advocacy groups that are pro-Palestine are actually framing the conflict in the wrong way. They are framing it as a national liberation struggle when the key to unlocking the conflict and guaranteeing human rights is to end the incentive of occupation in the first place. You have to tackle the Israeli military-industrial complex, and the incentives of politicians like Netenyahu to stoke the flames (getting rid of him was actually a good priority that failed at the last hurdle). Its the axis of the US-Israel relationship. And then you can counter the grift that is the US Evangelical-Settler movement alliance that comes with it.

That inevitably means an alliance with the Israeli secularists. We're beyond 1 state or 2 state solution, as an Israeli poster I think explained to me (might have been Wallmart_shopper). 1 state or 2 state is just theoretical for the moment. Its in a jigsaw world.

There was a great article by Anat Biletzki* I read in the book on critical perspectives in (western) transnational advocacy. Does anybody seriously think this conflict ends with either population transfers or a single-state solution where every election is an ethnic head count between Arabs and jews? You have to address things step by step like the securitization of things that should be under democratic oversight in Israel or the massive financial incentives of someone like Roman Abramovic to finance the settler movement and launder money in the process. These are actually concrete issues you can build broad coalitions with but instead we're talking about population exchanges and just generalised whataboutery. Unbelievable.

That kind of approach favoring the alliance of secularist forces within Israel-Palestine sounds interesting, but it seems to me it would require the support of the US administration. The latter is still committed to its unconditional alliance to the Israeli state,  while most members of the "international community" remain attached to the sham "two-state solution". I broadly agree with that thing you are outlining, but it's neccessary a paradigm shift

[Zinneke]

I don't think we should be using vocabulary such as apartheid. I don't remember members of the Xhosa or Zulu being potential kingmakers in the coalition in South Africa. But just because it isn't apartheid doesn't mean there is blatant evidence of racism and mistreatment of Arabs in Israel.

As for the USA, if the progressive Democrats grow some balls and Biden stops thinking any bargain is possible with the Grand Old Pedophiles, you can reach a compromise with the progressive Jews and the Tlaibs. I can see it happening. Netanyahu is costing them way too much political capital in the Middle East. They want to focus on China.