Digby wrote:Leaving aside if labelling the actions of Israel as ethnic cleansing it lessens the use the term for more serious actions, such as those of the Burmese against the Rohingya, and ignores there are plenty of valid complaints to focus on when it comes to use of military force, land grabs and the economic blockades there's also a far too easy retort for Israel, namely that they can easily find comment from Hamas about the destruction of Israel, an ethnic cleansing of Israel is an explicit stated aim. I'm finding it easy to argue with the contention Israel is involved in ethnic cleansing, and I don't even think Israel need exist, so the idea of slipping that argument past the Israelis seems farcical
The use of the military force is difficult to limit when Israel can point to rockets being fired into Israel, and the world is all a bit League of Nations when it comes to land grabs, whether Israel in this instance, or China, or Russia (and we're no angels historically), which leaves the economic blockade, and that I think it would be possible to see some progress around, but then one runs into the problem that such as Hamas want the problem, not moderate steps out of the problem.
Broadly I can't see a better idea than a 2 state solution, but how one gets the respective leaderships and their agitators to sit down and behave long enough to progress that I've no idea.
Your last paragraph I absolutely agree with. However the rest of it is ignoring the reality that Israel has total control and a two state solution is disappearing at the same rate the second state is. Hamas might have the eradication of Israel built into its founding documents, but it's like a mouse saying it wants the abolishment of all cats at this point. Israel is an occupying force across Gaza and the West Bank. They control power, water, imports, freedom of movement and migration, building permits, decisions to demolish/compulsory purchase/seize buildings, law, police and can effectively do as they like (and do). Such is the power disparity that this was Hamas's largest attack in decades, a massive expenditure of their resources and clearly the best they could do. They killed 6 people.
That's why people are agitated about you both-sidesing this. No-one is saying that both Hamas and the Israeli government are not both a bunch of fuckers, but one is a terrorist group of limited means and the other is an occupying force.
Puja
People can be as bothered as they want by saying both sides are bad. Both sides are killing children, thus saying it's just one side ignores a group that's killing children, which to me just seems daft no matter the disparity in many aspects of the conflict, and there's no way of getting both sides to the table if the narrative is one side is to blame
I do agree there are problems with the occupying force aspect, but that's not unique to Israel, and the world, Nato, the UN have no good answers to that
You're completely ignoring that international law mandates an occupying power such as Israel to not prolong the occupation any longer than necessary. It is supposed to be temporary and is long overdue. Israel as the occupying power has a responsibility under international law to effect the self-determination of the Palestinian people under its rule. What started out as a legal occupation after the 1967 war, has long become illegal due to the actions of Israel to turn its occupation permanent - de facto annexation.
So no, I don't think you can both-sides this. There is no parity in capability to effect self-determnation of the Palestinians, nor are the two parties' responsibilities under international law comparable.
You seem to be holding a bizarre stance, defending Israel, but at the same time questioning Israel's right to exist, which seems to be anti-semitic these days. You're all over the place, man. At least be consistent.
Don't worry. Kushner has it sorted. Its just a real estate dispute:
"“One of the reasons the Arab-Israeli conflict persisted for so long was the myth that it could be solved only after Israel and the Palestinians resolved their differences,” wrote Kushner. “That was never true. The Abraham Accords exposed the conflict as nothing more than a real-estate dispute between Israelis and Palestinians that need not hold up Israel’s relations with the broader Arab world.”
It's such a mystery why Palestinians get pissed off with this ongoing state of affairs.
Puja wrote:
Your last paragraph I absolutely agree with. However the rest of it is ignoring the reality that Israel has total control and a two state solution is disappearing at the same rate the second state is. Hamas might have the eradication of Israel built into its founding documents, but it's like a mouse saying it wants the abolishment of all cats at this point. Israel is an occupying force across Gaza and the West Bank. They control power, water, imports, freedom of movement and migration, building permits, decisions to demolish/compulsory purchase/seize buildings, law, police and can effectively do as they like (and do). Such is the power disparity that this was Hamas's largest attack in decades, a massive expenditure of their resources and clearly the best they could do. They killed 6 people.
That's why people are agitated about you both-sidesing this. No-one is saying that both Hamas and the Israeli government are not both a bunch of fuckers, but one is a terrorist group of limited means and the other is an occupying force.
Puja
People can be as bothered as they want by saying both sides are bad. Both sides are killing children, thus saying it's just one side ignores a group that's killing children, which to me just seems daft no matter the disparity in many aspects of the conflict, and there's no way of getting both sides to the table if the narrative is one side is to blame
I do agree there are problems with the occupying force aspect, but that's not unique to Israel, and the world, Nato, the UN have no good answers to that
No-one is saying that it's just one side!
We're saying that saying, "Oh, well both sides are at it," is a massive false equivalence and ignores the monumental power imbalance that means one side is in control and using that control to grind the other into the dust. The majority of the fault at the present time is with Israel because they do not need to be taking more land, or enforcing ever stricter interpretations of military law on Palestinians while Israelis get civil law, or enforcing dozens of policies designed to depopulate the West Bank and ghettoise the Palestinian population in Gaza.
To re-emphasise, no-one is saying that Hamas murdering is not bad or that they are not involved in making the situation worse. But it is not a case of Team A did a bad thing, Team B did a bad thing, they're both equally at fault, what can you do?
Puja wrote:
Your last paragraph I absolutely agree with. However the rest of it is ignoring the reality that Israel has total control and a two state solution is disappearing at the same rate the second state is. Hamas might have the eradication of Israel built into its founding documents, but it's like a mouse saying it wants the abolishment of all cats at this point. Israel is an occupying force across Gaza and the West Bank. They control power, water, imports, freedom of movement and migration, building permits, decisions to demolish/compulsory purchase/seize buildings, law, police and can effectively do as they like (and do). Such is the power disparity that this was Hamas's largest attack in decades, a massive expenditure of their resources and clearly the best they could do. They killed 6 people.
That's why people are agitated about you both-sidesing this. No-one is saying that both Hamas and the Israeli government are not both a bunch of fuckers, but one is a terrorist group of limited means and the other is an occupying force.
Puja
People can be as bothered as they want by saying both sides are bad. Both sides are killing children, thus saying it's just one side ignores a group that's killing children, which to me just seems daft no matter the disparity in many aspects of the conflict, and there's no way of getting both sides to the table if the narrative is one side is to blame
I do agree there are problems with the occupying force aspect, but that's not unique to Israel, and the world, Nato, the UN have no good answers to that
No-one is saying that it's just one side!
We're saying that saying, "Oh, well both sides are at it," is a massive false equivalence and ignores the monumental power imbalance that means one side is in control and using that control to grind the other into the dust. The majority of the fault at the present time is with Israel because they do not need to be taking more land, or enforcing ever stricter interpretations of military law on Palestinians while Israelis get civil law, or enforcing dozens of policies designed to depopulate the West Bank and ghettoise the Palestinian population in Gaza.
To re-emphasise, no-one is saying that Hamas murdering is not bad or that they are not involved in making the situation worse. But it is not a case of Team A did a bad thing, Team B did a bad thing, they're both equally at fault, what can you do?
Puja
What can you do? Not use phrases like massively asymmetrical or note you can understand why one side engages in violence.
Or at least one side will hear that as it's okay to blame Israel, and it's okay to visit violence on Israel.
Digby wrote:
People can be as bothered as they want by saying both sides are bad. Both sides are killing children, thus saying it's just one side ignores a group that's killing children, which to me just seems daft no matter the disparity in many aspects of the conflict, and there's no way of getting both sides to the table if the narrative is one side is to blame
I do agree there are problems with the occupying force aspect, but that's not unique to Israel, and the world, Nato, the UN have no good answers to that
No-one is saying that it's just one side!
We're saying that saying, "Oh, well both sides are at it," is a massive false equivalence and ignores the monumental power imbalance that means one side is in control and using that control to grind the other into the dust. The majority of the fault at the present time is with Israel because they do not need to be taking more land, or enforcing ever stricter interpretations of military law on Palestinians while Israelis get civil law, or enforcing dozens of policies designed to depopulate the West Bank and ghettoise the Palestinian population in Gaza.
To re-emphasise, no-one is saying that Hamas murdering is not bad or that they are not involved in making the situation worse. But it is not a case of Team A did a bad thing, Team B did a bad thing, they're both equally at fault, what can you do?
Puja
What can you do? Not use phrases like massively asymmetrical or note you can understand why one side engages in violence.
Or at least one side will hear that as it's okay to blame Israel, and it's okay to visit violence on Israel.
In school if your child gets beat up but fought back, and the teachers said they won't discipline the bully because both sides are at fault... would you agree with that?
It is not reasonable to expect people to eschew violence when someone uses force to dominate them.
Puja wrote:
No-one is saying that it's just one side!
We're saying that saying, "Oh, well both sides are at it," is a massive false equivalence and ignores the monumental power imbalance that means one side is in control and using that control to grind the other into the dust. The majority of the fault at the present time is with Israel because they do not need to be taking more land, or enforcing ever stricter interpretations of military law on Palestinians while Israelis get civil law, or enforcing dozens of policies designed to depopulate the West Bank and ghettoise the Palestinian population in Gaza.
To re-emphasise, no-one is saying that Hamas murdering is not bad or that they are not involved in making the situation worse. But it is not a case of Team A did a bad thing, Team B did a bad thing, they're both equally at fault, what can you do?
Puja
What can you do? Not use phrases like massively asymmetrical or note you can understand why one side engages in violence.
Or at least one side will hear that as it's okay to blame Israel, and it's okay to visit violence on Israel.
In school if your child gets beat up but fought back, and the teachers said they won't discipline the bully because both sides are at fault... would you agree with that?
It is not reasonable to expect people to eschew violence when someone uses force to dominate them.
It's like there's a gang of 16 yr old bullies at the school who steal from and beat up the 11 yr olds every day. But because a couple of the 11 yr olds have fought back (before being beaten even more viciously), the teachers say they can't do anything, for any of the kids, not even return the stolen property.
This only seems like a difficult problem because America supports Israel. If they decided to support international law instead, and were willing to take action (as they do with Iran), things would be different. (On that note, I wonder if Biden will move the US embassy back to Tel Aviv, or is that too bold a move for him??)
Son of Mathonwy wrote:(On that note, I wonder if Biden will move the US embassy back to Tel Aviv, or is that too bold a move for him??)
Absolutely no chance. Biden is laser focussed on keeping Republican support and won't do anything right if it might mean upsetting a few folk. He wouldn't have risked the controversy of moving the embassy himself, but he sure as shit won't take action if he doesn't have to (see also, the ridiculous amount of time and pressure it took for him to reverse Trump's refugee cap).
Son of Mathonwy wrote:
It's like there's a gang of 16 yr old bullies at the school who steal from and beat up the 11 yr olds every day. But because a couple of the 11 yr olds have fought back (before being beaten even more viciously), the teachers say they can't do anything, for any of the kids, not even return the stolen property.
This only seems like a difficult problem because America supports Israel. If they decided to support international law instead, and were willing to take action (as they do with Iran), things would be different. (On that note, I wonder if Biden will move the US embassy back to Tel Aviv, or is that too bold a move for him??)
International law is a problem, both having the laws in place and having anyone to enforce them, and there are no good solutions to this. Though I don't take it as a given simply having the US withdraw from an arena promotes a solution, because you might well find Russia or China simply step in to any vacuum, and it's not like the situation is being addressed by reasonable adults other than the US
A] No-one suggesting the US just steps away and leaves a vacuum (or if the are, I've missed it).
B] In no way, shape, or form, are the US acting like reasonable adults in this - that's the point.
If the US acted like reasonable adults, they'd apply actual pressure to get a solution sorted, or at least first steps made. Wait is, they simply condone the actions of one side - the invading military force.
Son of Mathonwy wrote:
It's like there's a gang of 16 yr old bullies at the school who steal from and beat up the 11 yr olds every day. But because a couple of the 11 yr olds have fought back (before being beaten even more viciously), the teachers say they can't do anything, for any of the kids, not even return the stolen property.
This only seems like a difficult problem because America supports Israel. If they decided to support international law instead, and were willing to take action (as they do with Iran), things would be different. (On that note, I wonder if Biden will move the US embassy back to Tel Aviv, or is that too bold a move for him??)
International law is a problem, both having the laws in place and having anyone to enforce them, and there are no good solutions to this. Though I don't take it as a given simply having the US withdraw from an arena promotes a solution, because you might well find Russia or China simply step in to any vacuum, and it's not like the situation is being addressed by reasonable adults other than the US
There are problems with international law but the law is clear enough that Israel is illegally occupying the territory. The USA is perfectly capable of applying sanctions to other Middle-Eastern countries but still chooses to actively support Israel. International law is not the problem, the actions (and inactions) of the USA are.
Who talked about the USA vacating an area? They're not present in Israel or the occupied territories. What they need to do is stop giving Israel political, military and financial support (as a basic first step) then actually apply sanctions until Israel respects international law and vacates Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights. 'Reasonable adults' is an interesting take.
Son of Mathonwy wrote:
It's like there's a gang of 16 yr old bullies at the school who steal from and beat up the 11 yr olds every day. But because a couple of the 11 yr olds have fought back (before being beaten even more viciously), the teachers say they can't do anything, for any of the kids, not even return the stolen property.
This only seems like a difficult problem because America supports Israel. If they decided to support international law instead, and were willing to take action (as they do with Iran), things would be different. (On that note, I wonder if Biden will move the US embassy back to Tel Aviv, or is that too bold a move for him??)
International law is a problem, both having the laws in place and having anyone to enforce them, and there are no good solutions to this. Though I don't take it as a given simply having the US withdraw from an arena promotes a solution, because you might well find Russia or China simply step in to any vacuum, and it's not like the situation is being addressed by reasonable adults other than the US
There are problems with international law but the law is clear enough that Israel is illegally occupying the territory. The USA is perfectly capable of applying sanctions to other Middle-Eastern countries but still chooses to actively support Israel. International law is not the problem, the actions (and inactions) of the USA are.
Who talked about the USA vacating an area? They're not present in Israel or the occupied territories. What they need to do is stop giving Israel political, military and financial support (as a basic first step) then actually apply sanctions until Israel respects international law and vacates Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights. 'Reasonable adults' is an interesting take.
And stop blocking any attempts at censure or recognition of the Palestinian state at the UN would also be nice.
Digby wrote:
International law is a problem, both having the laws in place and having anyone to enforce them, and there are no good solutions to this. Though I don't take it as a given simply having the US withdraw from an arena promotes a solution, because you might well find Russia or China simply step in to any vacuum, and it's not like the situation is being addressed by reasonable adults other than the US
There are problems with international law but the law is clear enough that Israel is illegally occupying the territory. The USA is perfectly capable of applying sanctions to other Middle-Eastern countries but still chooses to actively support Israel. International law is not the problem, the actions (and inactions) of the USA are.
Who talked about the USA vacating an area? They're not present in Israel or the occupied territories. What they need to do is stop giving Israel political, military and financial support (as a basic first step) then actually apply sanctions until Israel respects international law and vacates Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights. 'Reasonable adults' is an interesting take.
And stop blocking any attempts at censure or recognition of the Palestinian state at the UN would also be nice.
Puja
Shocking how many who demand Israel's right to exist in the next breath deny Palesine's right. Both should have this right. All peoples have a right to self-determination.
Son of Mathonwy wrote:
It's like there's a gang of 16 yr old bullies at the school who steal from and beat up the 11 yr olds every day. But because a couple of the 11 yr olds have fought back (before being beaten even more viciously), the teachers say they can't do anything, for any of the kids, not even return the stolen property.
This only seems like a difficult problem because America supports Israel. If they decided to support international law instead, and were willing to take action (as they do with Iran), things would be different. (On that note, I wonder if Biden will move the US embassy back to Tel Aviv, or is that too bold a move for him??)
International law is a problem, both having the laws in place and having anyone to enforce them, and there are no good solutions to this. Though I don't take it as a given simply having the US withdraw from an arena promotes a solution, because you might well find Russia or China simply step in to any vacuum, and it's not like the situation is being addressed by reasonable adults other than the US
There are problems with international law but the law is clear enough that Israel is illegally occupying the territory. The USA is perfectly capable of applying sanctions to other Middle-Eastern countries but still chooses to actively support Israel. International law is not the problem, the actions (and inactions) of the USA are.
Who talked about the USA vacating an area? They're not present in Israel or the occupied territories. What they need to do is stop giving Israel political, military and financial support (as a basic first step) then actually apply sanctions until Israel respects international law and vacates Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights. 'Reasonable adults' is an interesting take.
There are more examples than just Israel when it comes to illegally occupying territory. None of which have from memory drawn a good response, so even if there's a law in place enforcing is a problem, thus noting 'International law is a problem, both having the laws in place and having anyone to enforce them'
As a slight aside, and as has been noted, it might well not even last a week, but that there is even for a moment a coalition agreement featuring amongst others an Arab-Israeli party and a Jewish Nationalist party is something. It might never prove useful, other than in and of itself it is quite something given all else.
Digby wrote:
International law is a problem, both having the laws in place and having anyone to enforce them, and there are no good solutions to this. Though I don't take it as a given simply having the US withdraw from an arena promotes a solution, because you might well find Russia or China simply step in to any vacuum, and it's not like the situation is being addressed by reasonable adults other than the US
There are problems with international law but the law is clear enough that Israel is illegally occupying the territory. The USA is perfectly capable of applying sanctions to other Middle-Eastern countries but still chooses to actively support Israel. International law is not the problem, the actions (and inactions) of the USA are.
Who talked about the USA vacating an area? They're not present in Israel or the occupied territories. What they need to do is stop giving Israel political, military and financial support (as a basic first step) then actually apply sanctions until Israel respects international law and vacates Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights. 'Reasonable adults' is an interesting take.
There are more examples than just Israel when it comes to illegally occupying territory. None of which have from memory drawn a good response, so even if there's a law in place enforcing is a problem, thus noting 'International law is a problem, both having the laws in place and having anyone to enforce them'
Russia had sanctions slapped on them for their actions in Ukraine and Georgia... for starters.
Digby wrote:
International law is a problem, both having the laws in place and having anyone to enforce them, and there are no good solutions to this. Though I don't take it as a given simply having the US withdraw from an arena promotes a solution, because you might well find Russia or China simply step in to any vacuum, and it's not like the situation is being addressed by reasonable adults other than the US
There are problems with international law but the law is clear enough that Israel is illegally occupying the territory. The USA is perfectly capable of applying sanctions to other Middle-Eastern countries but still chooses to actively support Israel. International law is not the problem, the actions (and inactions) of the USA are.
Who talked about the USA vacating an area? They're not present in Israel or the occupied territories. What they need to do is stop giving Israel political, military and financial support (as a basic first step) then actually apply sanctions until Israel respects international law and vacates Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights. 'Reasonable adults' is an interesting take.
There are more examples than just Israel when it comes to illegally occupying territory. None of which have from memory drawn a good response, so even if there's a law in place enforcing is a problem, thus noting 'International law is a problem, both having the laws in place and having anyone to enforce them'
I'm not seeing anything in your post that prevents the USA from doing the right thing (assuming you would agree that it's the right thing?).
International laws are in place and enforcement is something that the US could choose to do (rather than the opposite).
Son of Mathonwy wrote:
There are problems with international law but the law is clear enough that Israel is illegally occupying the territory. The USA is perfectly capable of applying sanctions to other Middle-Eastern countries but still chooses to actively support Israel. International law is not the problem, the actions (and inactions) of the USA are.
Who talked about the USA vacating an area? They're not present in Israel or the occupied territories. What they need to do is stop giving Israel political, military and financial support (as a basic first step) then actually apply sanctions until Israel respects international law and vacates Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights. 'Reasonable adults' is an interesting take.
There are more examples than just Israel when it comes to illegally occupying territory. None of which have from memory drawn a good response, so even if there's a law in place enforcing is a problem, thus noting 'International law is a problem, both having the laws in place and having anyone to enforce them'
I'm not seeing anything in your post that prevents the USA from doing the right thing (assuming you would agree that it's the right thing?).
International laws are in place and enforcement is something that the US could choose to do (rather than the opposite).
I don't know what the right thing is in terms of something that would actually work vis a vis a 2 state solution. And I don't know we have any good answers to illegal land grabs, not by Israel, China, Russia, frankly us in the past.
Digby wrote:
There are more examples than just Israel when it comes to illegally occupying territory. None of which have from memory drawn a good response, so even if there's a law in place enforcing is a problem, thus noting 'International law is a problem, both having the laws in place and having anyone to enforce them'
I'm not seeing anything in your post that prevents the USA from doing the right thing (assuming you would agree that it's the right thing?).
International laws are in place and enforcement is something that the US could choose to do (rather than the opposite).
I don't know what the right thing is in terms of something that would actually work vis a vis a 2 state solution. And I don't know we have any good answers to illegal land grabs, not by Israel, China, Russia, frankly us in the past.
When China and Russia have made illegal land grabs in the 21st Century, there were sanctions imposed and generalised opprobrium. While it hasn't result in much change, at least there were some consequences.
For Israel, the US is supporting these land grabs through funding and equipment, and then supporting them afterwards by blocking any attempts at international sanctions and suggesting that they could build a town named after the President on their stolen land. There's a difference that you're wilfully ignoring.
Digby wrote:
There are more examples than just Israel when it comes to illegally occupying territory. None of which have from memory drawn a good response, so even if there's a law in place enforcing is a problem, thus noting 'International law is a problem, both having the laws in place and having anyone to enforce them'
I'm not seeing anything in your post that prevents the USA from doing the right thing (assuming you would agree that it's the right thing?).
International laws are in place and enforcement is something that the US could choose to do (rather than the opposite).
I don't know what the right thing is in terms of something that would actually work vis a vis a 2 state solution. And I don't know we have any good answers to illegal land grabs, not by Israel, China, Russia, frankly us in the past.
1) Do you have a view as to which is the right thing to do, morally?
2) Which approach do you think is more likely to bring about a free Palestinian state on the occupied territories, and/or discourage illegal land grabs in other places in the future:
a) supporting Israel's illegal occupation politically, financially and militarily, as is currently the case,
or
b) opposing Israel's illegal occupation politically and via sanctions?
Sandydragon wrote:The US will not impose sanctions on an ally to favour a terrorist group.
It shouldn't be about favouring a terrorist group, in the same way that removing British military law from Northern Ireland wasn't about favouring the IRA. And it doesn't have to be sanctions - the USA provides so much money and materiel to Israel each year that a quiet word to stop claiming new territory and building new settlements for Israelis there ("please put a pause on the war crimes") and come back to the negotiating table would be sufficient. The reason that doesn't happen is that the US government as a whole is partially controlled by rich Christian loons (whoever the President is) who see Israel's ascendance as part of their Rapture prophecies and no-one's able to tell them to grow up without losing power.
Sandydragon wrote:The US will not impose sanctions on an ally to favour a terrorist group.
It shouldn't be about favouring a terrorist group, in the same way that removing British military law from Northern Ireland wasn't about favouring the IRA. And it doesn't have to be sanctions - the USA provides so much money and materiel to Israel each year that a quiet word to stop claiming new territory and building new settlements for Israelis there ("please put a pause on the war crimes") and come back to the negotiating table would be sufficient. The reason that doesn't happen is that the US government as a whole is partially controlled by rich Christian loons (whoever the President is) who see Israel's ascendance as part of their Rapture prophecies and no-one's able to tell them to grow up without losing power.
Puja
That's not a great comparison as the military support to RUC/PSNI was scaled down (never completely removed) as part of the peace process and there was never military law in Northern Ireland.
To get both sides to the negotiating table, both sides need to be incentivised/compelled to play ball. That means that those with influence for the Israelis and various Palestinian groups need to put the pressure on. Israel needs to stop building more settlements and Hamas needs to stop launching rockets.
The deal thrashed out in 2000 was close to something that would work. I'd use that as a basis for future talks.
Sandydragon wrote:The US will not impose sanctions on an ally to favour a terrorist group.
It shouldn't be about favouring a terrorist group, in the same way that removing British military law from Northern Ireland wasn't about favouring the IRA. And it doesn't have to be sanctions - the USA provides so much money and materiel to Israel each year that a quiet word to stop claiming new territory and building new settlements for Israelis there ("please put a pause on the war crimes") and come back to the negotiating table would be sufficient. The reason that doesn't happen is that the US government as a whole is partially controlled by rich Christian loons (whoever the President is) who see Israel's ascendance as part of their Rapture prophecies and no-one's able to tell them to grow up without losing power.
Puja
That's not a great comparison as the military support to RUC/PSNI was scaled down (never completely removed) as part of the peace process and there was never military law in Northern Ireland.
To get both sides to the negotiating table, both sides need to be incentivised/compelled to play ball. That means that those with influence for the Israelis and various Palestinian groups need to put the pressure on. Israel needs to stop building more settlements and Hamas needs to stop launching rockets.
The deal thrashed out in 2000 was close to something that would work. I'd use that as a basis for future talks.
Spot on. Israel have no incentive to negotiate as no-one will compel them and they're currently winning hands down, so why would they want to compromise. And Hamas won't stop because providing a resistance to Israel gives them power and a meaning, and they're losing so badly that they may as well carry on with the terrorism cause frankly it's hard to see what they've got left in terms of a bargaining position to compromise with aside from "stop murdering". Needs a big nation/the UN to step in and force both sides to the table.
The 2000 deal will never fly though. It would basically be a massive reverse from the current state of affairs for Israel - they've had 21 years of forward motion since then and a good chunk of the areas marked as Palestine in that deal are now full of Israeli settlements.
