Schumer's speech

Yes, I agree that a two state solution seems to get further and further away. As Rich says though, it's the only long term solution. Israel can't allow a one democratic state because there's far more Palestinians than Israelis. Hence Netanyahu seems to be toying with more of a genocide type solution. Of course, I'm sure he'd be thrilled if Egypt allowed the Gaza population to be relocated to Egypt. That not being likely means to me that a two state solution is the only long term solution.

 

Impossible at this stage. Gaza showed what will happen, it was a mini state.

 

No. It not only isn't the only solution, it isn't even ANY solution because the current government of Israel will not permit it nor do I see any change in circumstances that will make a two state solution attractive in the future.

I see two realistic scenarios. Either the Palestinians will continue to live under the thumb of a corrupt and undemocratic Israeli puppet regime or the Palestinian presence in Palestine will cease to exist. There may be a temporary combination of the two. Ultimately Israel intends to achieve undisputed hegemony from the river to the sea.

 

For Gaza, I think/hope that Israel or her enablers will balk at simply killing or exiling all of the residents. Then again, I see no hesitation so far. My guess is that Israeli arms will enforce a FATAH administration. After all, Abbas is in the 19th year of his four year term. He is definitely...flexible, compliant is the word. He makes a good fig leaf and is well paid for his efforts.

 

Bill, your saying about Netanyahu are far from truthful, it's propaganda that Islamists and Muslim brotherhood propagate and know those who need votes for the next elections as well.
If Israel wanted what you are saying, the numbers would have been in a hundred thousands.
Israel is aiming to destroy Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists from controlling Gaza and having the ability to shoot rockets at Israeli children, civilians etc.
There is no Netanyahu toying with genocide type solution. Unless you mean what Hamas wants to do to the Israelis.
They are the ones who for more than 100 years toying with genocide type solution against the Jews. Including partnering with Hitler.

 

I don't think that's true, Lerner. Spend some time with Kahane inspired statements. I agree that most Israelis don't want anything like genocide but those currently in power seem to be after nothing else.

 

Those in power have one goal, and it's saving the Israel from destruction and preventing another Holocaust.
I disagree with such statements against Israeli leadership because they are distorted.
I'm familiar with what Rabbi Kahane preached, and warned, and many of his warning were accurate but unlike him, I don't follow the extreme views,
And know that many Arabs don't want to destroy Israel, and Bedouins have blood contract with Israel, to protect it, so are Druz and many among Christian Arabs.
Muslim Arabs are under a lot of pressure from radicals and they kill collaborators, harm the family members and relatives, so it's mob type control. Terror.
There are extremists on both sides. Fanatics who believe in settlement in the Whole Land of Israel by force, unlike many, who seek political solution.
There were times that two-state solution would have worked.
But I repeat, the view of Netanyahu government is distorted, there are no genocide thoughts there.

 

There are Israelis that want Palestinian genocide. It is more commonly a position embraced by the Israeli right-wing. I also note that moving mass Palestinians out of Gaza and into Egypt would seem to fit the definition of genocide. You don't believe that Netanyahu and the right-wing parties in the government has hoped for such a solution?

Here's an article specifically about accusations of genocide. It was written over a month ago. If anything the argument for genocide has gotten stronger since. Gaza is on the verge of mass starvation. Israel is not allowing anywhere near efficient food to get into Gaza.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-limits-of-accusing-israel-of-genocide-under-international-law

 

Well, I don't think this definition is correct. Maybe ethnic cleansing more matching, but genocide in my understanding is extermination, not relocation or exile.

What Arab countries did to Jews in the 1950s was ethnic cleansing exiling them, and creating 900,000 refugees who lost everything and were expelled from the Arab countries.
Egypt was leading in those actions.

Gaza at one time was under Egypt, and many born there.

 

Possible solution at this time is Palestinian Authority reform, taking some role of governing Gaza.
With very difficult task of changing the education system in Gaza, almost impossible because of hate that was created.
Israel ability to enter and take care of militants to prevent terror attacks against Israeli population, to destroy terror infrastructure, as they do in West Bank.
Work on Abraham accords and deal with Saudis, and work on gradual improvement of situation between two people.
Reduction in Terror will follow with greater freedoms and control going to Palestinians and their leadership and possibility of two states in the future.

 

Letter, I can only say that I hope you are right but I think you are mistaken.

 

Genocide was coined to mean, and is generally used in law to mean, the destruction of an ethnic group as such (as a group). This is the case whether it is done by killing of all members of the group or other means, such as dispersing the group.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/genocide

 

ogout

I don't see and there is no separate people called Palestinians (late invention by PLO in the 1960s), there are 500,000,000 Arabs around there, and if we use the definition on Wiki the genocide is against the Jews of Palestine/Land of Israel by the Arabs with the help of Iran. The world is trying to create a separate people, but there are Arabs and Jews of Palestine, the Roman name of the Land of Israel. There was never a country called Palestine, just a geographical area with changing borders and definitions. Yet if this large group of Arabs who migrated to the land of Israel from Egypt and other Arab countries, kingdoms, and some of them can be traced to the Arab Invaders feel differently because they have some roots in that land, then Arabs should accommodate them and not everything should be on expense of the state of Israel, then 50% of Jordan should be given to them.

 

I've heard that canard often before now from Right Wing Israelis mostly. It's not whether it's factual that matters. That's irrelevant. What DOES matter and what absolutely IS relevant is that a large community of Arabs were present in the area from at least the Ottoman period and their descendants are still there. These people are "Arabs" living in "Palestine". Whether they had an independent state means nothing.

The same thing can also be said of "Palestinian" Jews who have been there since ancient times. The difference is that the population was much smaller until the nineteenth century when the mass migrations began. By the time of the Mandate, there was a large population of "Jews" living in "The Land of Israel" and native to it.

NONE OF THIS MATTERS. Both communities exist and attempts to destroy either community would be genocide by definition.

 

The mandate to Palestine was clear, the establishment of a National Home for the Jewish people in the whole Palestine, Judea, Samaria included, but it was alongside of Arab people.
This conflict between the two people is more than 100 years old. It's on going. Israel is a sovereign country, Palestine, there is no such country.
My views are not right wing, I see Israeli Arabs as part of Israeli people. Just like Hispanics, a part of New Mexico.
Countries that joined the Abraham accords see this as well and understand that so-called Palestinians are being used by the other political forces.
If peaceful country, side by side is a solution, I'm for it. But as we have seen in Gaza, the reality is different. They want it all, and they want Israel and Jews gone.

 

...which suggests a one state solution for Palestine. Which would be OK, except it will not fly in Israel. Because it would threaten the Jewish character of the state of Israel.
I admit I don't know enough about the conflict, but what Rich said sounds logically sound. It's either a state of Palestine or an eternal occupation (apartheid). Or an ethnic cleansing.


...none of which makes Hamas even a little more legitimate. It is an openly genocidal terrorist movement.

 

I don't see how non existing country is Paletine should replace Israel a legitimate soveren country founded in 1948.
It's li Iike to say partition Ukraine or call it all Soviet or Romania especially Bukovina, and ignore 1991 formation of independent Ukraine.
What about Jordan?

I don't have all the answers, just opinion.
And it's biased toward the Jewish state.

 

The "cide" in genocide stems from the Latin "caedes" meaning slaughter. That is the true meaning of the word. Anything else is an artificial "softener" and I don't believe in them. Political inventions, political purposes. Same as germicides, spermicides etc. (both of which I'm all for) mean killing - nothing else.

 

Gaza and the West Bank are not part of the internationally recognized state of Israel. That's the problem. And the trilemma here is 1) integrate it into Israel, giving millions of non-Jews voting rights, or 2) form a new Palestinian State on these territories, or 3) keep it as an occupied Bantustan. Number 3 is what Bibi seems to have chosen. It seems like the official US policy, at least rhetorically, is to support Israel but work on creating conditions to some day option 2. Hence, Schumer's speech. I don't know, it seems to me that Schumer's speech is more in line with the long-term interests of everyone, including Israel - except Netanyahu.