|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:So the plan is just to formally turn Israel into Apartheid South Africa, rather than having apartheid beneath the thinnest possible veneer of plausible deniability? The bantustans were pretty much that "thinnest possible veneer of plausible deniability". Since the bantustans were nominally independent countries legally distinct from South Africa, it only made sense that the residents of the bantustans would lose their voting rights and any other rights they had as citizens of South Africa, because they were now foreign citizens. Except that it was incredibly obvious that South Africa was doing it just to impose official segregation while avoiding criticism for apartheid, and the bantustans barely qualified as nominally independent given that they were economically and politically dependent on South Africa. While these halfassed Palestine proposals do accomplish similar things, such as imposing official segregation and granting an excuse to deprive Palestinians (and Israeli Arabs) of political rights while still keeping them under Israeli control, there's one more key goal that didn't exist in South Africa: https://twitter.com/Ibishblog/status/1222248424751489024 This is basically the entire reason Israel has any interest in actually concluding a peace deal (as opposed to just going through the motions forever to appease international interests). Israel hopes to permanently put an end to the Palestinian claims against it as part of any agreement, removing the official international recognition and support for the Palestinian refugees.
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 02:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 13:48 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:This is basically the entire reason Israel has any interest in actually concluding a peace deal (as opposed to just going through the motions forever to appease international interests). Israel hopes to permanently put an end to the Palestinian claims against it as part of any agreement, removing the official international recognition and support for the Palestinian refugees. Can you really call it a deal when only one side is involved? They're aiming to put on paper what has been the facts on the ground for years, the Palestinians do not get a say in this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 02:31
|
|
|
Its possible Kushner is dumb enough to think it'll work but I assume it was made to be rejected
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 02:34
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Can you really call it a deal when only one side is involved? They're aiming to put on paper what has been the facts on the ground for years, the Palestinians do not get a say in this. That this deal was unveiled almost simultaneously with the US giving the green light for Israel to annex the settlements says a lot about what the real plan is here
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 03:55
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Can you really call it a deal when only one side is involved? They're aiming to put on paper what has been the facts on the ground for years, the Palestinians do not get a say in this. They also want international recognition and acceptance of the facts on the ground and an end to international support of Palestinian refugees and claims which is a big difference from the status quo. The deal is less with the Palestinians and more with the rest of the international community and the implication that the US will rough up anyone who objects too loudly. [edit] What is the disconnected harbor symbol on the map all about? Is that the Palestinians single authorized treaty port or something? Munin fucked around with this message at 04:04 on Jan 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 04:02
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I'm pretty confident that this is being done on purpose to try and make the Palestinians look 'unreasonable' when they reject the deal, which will then allow the US/Israel/SA free reign to do whatever they feel like to bring the hammer down. To whom would they look unreasonable? Even if you took past administrations` actions entirely cynically, they made sure to involve the Palestinians and other Arab leaders closer to them very closely, which lent some credence to arguments that they were being obstinate; in this case, the Palestinians were openly not consulted, nothing was discussed with them, they are barely mentioned in this "deal" (which looks more like a propaganda reel than anything resembling a treaty). Having the two "sides" of Israeli politics is the main achievement presented there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 04:05
|
|
|
Nebalebadingdong posted:Its possible Kushner is dumb enough to think it'll work but I assume it was made to be rejected Kushner’s real estate experience was cited as a reason he was put on the team. So... maybe they’re just stupid?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 04:08
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:To whom would they look unreasonable? Even if you took past administrations` actions entirely cynically, they made sure to involve the Palestinians and other Arab leaders closer to them very closely, which lent some credence to arguments that they were being obstinate; in this case, the Palestinians were openly not consulted, nothing was discussed with them, they are barely mentioned in this "deal" (which looks more like a propaganda reel than anything resembling a treaty). Having the two "sides" of Israeli politics is the main achievement presented there. The rest of the world knows this is a pile of poo poo, but they can't do much more than they already are with respect to Israel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 04:16
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:This time the US is more directly involved, and they along with Israel/SA are basically saying that you need to take this or there will be consequences. I mean look at the quotes from that Kushner speech.... Well, then it isn't being done to make the Palestinians look "unreasonable". Which is what I said.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 04:17
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Well, then it isn't being done to make the Palestinians look "unreasonable". Which is what I said.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 04:21
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:This plan was done by idiots so it's not very easy to explain. I suppose it could also be a boost to Bibi and Likud which had been discussed prior to the unveiling of this plan. Although it ended up falling on the same day that Bibi was officially indicted, so not good timing there... They looked at past peace plans through a mirror, drunkly. Edit: here's a.... string of words from Canada: https://twitter.com/FP_Champagne/status/1222352843191046146 Absurd Alhazred fucked around with this message at 04:49 on Jan 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 04:24
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:They looked at past peace plans through a mirror, drunkly.  the statement
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 05:09
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Oh and look at this abomination: You say tunnel, but it could be a bridge!
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 09:46
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:You say tunnel, but it could be a bridge! let me ask the ethnostate attached to metaphor
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 09:55
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:This is God drat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 10:07
|
|
|
By popular demand posted:God drat. EU put out a similarly worded mealy-mouthed statement. Some poo poo about carefully studying this and hoping it can be the first step in a restoration of the peace process or whatever. Basically poo poo that sounds good only to people who haven't the faintest clue of what is actually going on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 10:46
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:This is We're Canada. If we say anything wrong the US will roll over and crush our economy out of spite. At least we're not (currently) all-in on Palestinian genocide like we will be once we elect a Conservative in 4 years. Don't expect anything like moral courage from us though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 11:05
|
|
|
Why say anything though? It's not as if the middle East is not used to Canada vaguely supporting the U.S. intentions. Could have just said that you are not involved in this plan and cannot comment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 11:56
|
|
|
Actually given our track record, yeah, you're probably right.
Lassitude fucked around with this message at 12:17 on Jan 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 12:14
|
|
|
Shouldn't even call it a "peace plan".
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 12:18
|
|
|
Shouldn't even call it a plan. It's a wish-list with some dumb maps.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 14:18
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Shouldn't even call it a plan. It's a wish-list with some dumb maps.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 14:24
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:And it’s the Likud dream list All those Palestinian enclaves near the Egyptian border aren't on the dream list. Apparently people there are already upset, as they haven't been consulted, either (Hebrew). They also walked back the (caretaker!) government voting for annexation on Sunday (Hebrew) This is going to continue the settler movement freakout over leaks about the "plan" not going far enough in their favor. There are two things here they really don't like: enclaves inside Palestinian-controlled territory, and the very fact of any Palestinian sovereignty.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 14:38
|
|
|
I’m glad at least the pro-Zionist NYT is calling this plan out as garbage. The homepage has an article up saying that this is just to benefit both Bibi and Trump in an election year, rather than an actual plan
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 14:41
|
|
|
Man, it's good to be a sovereign state:
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 14:48
|
|
|
It's literally what you get if you give someone with zero local knowledge a map and a sharpy and tell them to fix the conflict
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 14:49
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I’m glad at least the pro-Zionist NYT is calling this plan out as garbage. The homepage has an article up saying that this is just to benefit both Bibi and Trump in an election year, rather than an actual plan Maybe sometime in the next decade this will force people to contend with the notion that "Zionist" and "Likud" and "Settler Movement" aren't interchangeable. Not keeping my hopes up, though. Edit: Here's a tweet in English about annexation walk-back: https://twitter.com/BarakRavid/status/1222525315475476480 Absurd Alhazred fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Jan 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 14:54
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:They looked at past peace plans through a mirror, drunkly. Translation: "this is a crock of poo poo but we are too spineless to oppose it, so we'll just issue some noncommittal platitudes" Orange Devil posted:EU put out a similarly worded mealy-mouthed statement. Some poo poo about carefully studying this and hoping it can be the first step in a restoration of the peace process or whatever. Basically poo poo that sounds good only to people who haven't the faintest clue of what is actually going on. The same translation also applies. Canada and the EU are the USA's bitches and utterly unable to actually oppose it diplomatically in any meaningful way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 19:02
|
|
|
This sounds pretty similar to what Clinton offered in 2000, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 19:14
|
|
|
kidkissinger posted:This sounds pretty similar to what Clinton offered in 2000, right? It's much worse. The Clinton 2000 framework would have given Palestine 95% of the West Bank minus the settlement blocs on the border, along with land swaps to compensate. Palestine would have recieved the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem and "symbolic" sovereignty over Temple Mount. Israel would have paid compensation to Palestinian refugees although they would not be able to resettle in Israel. The Palestinians rejected it because it did not specify that the West Bank would be undivided (Israel was insisting on holding settlement blocs that would divide the territory) and because giving up even symbolic return of refugees to Israel was a complete non-starter. Whereas the current mooted plan gives Palestine 70% of the West Bank, sliced up into dozens of non-contiguous parts and with Israeli settlements embedded within. Abu Dis, a small village outside of Jerusalem, would be named "Jerusalem" so Palestinians could feel better about themselves. Not only would no refugees be allowed into Israel, Israel would pay no compensation and in fact the UNRWA (the UN agency that supports Palestinian refugees) would shut down. What little autonomy is promised to Palestinians is gated on agreeing to be a disarmed and compliant puppet state; effectively an enforcement agency to prevent terrorist attacks against Israel with no other power. Surprisingly, Palestinian leaders passed on this as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 20:52
|
|
|
There are way more settlements now than in 2000 so it’s a big difference The Clinton deal was also not nearly as blatantly offensive
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 21:00
|
|
|
I was pretty young then but I also don't recall Clinton telling the Palestinians to go gently caress their mothers at the same time
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 21:36
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:I was pretty young then but I also don't recall Clinton telling the Palestinians to go gently caress their mothers at the same time Clinton didn't say the silent part out loud, correct.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 22:29
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Clinton didn't say the silent part out loud, correct. Wise of the Palestinians to have rejected it, then.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 00:17
|
|
|
I'll say the same thing as I've said since like 2005, it's going to end up in an one-state solution. Israel just took shortcut to it I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 01:26
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:I'll say the same thing as I've said since like 2005, it's going to end up in an one-state solution. Israel just took shortcut to it I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 01:47
|
|
|
Bojo fellated Trump's plan of course. The tone of the coverage of the plan on the BBC seemed to markedly shift after that happened as well...
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 07:44
|
|
|
Lum_ posted:It's much worse. The Clinton 2000 framework would have given Palestine 95% of the West Bank minus the settlement blocs on the border, along with land swaps to compensate. Palestine would have recieved the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem and "symbolic" sovereignty over Temple Mount. Israel would have paid compensation to Palestinian refugees although they would not be able to resettle in Israel. The Palestinians rejected it because it did not specify that the West Bank would be undivided (Israel was insisting on holding settlement blocs that would divide the territory) and because giving up even symbolic return of refugees to Israel was a complete non-starter. I believe the right of return ended up being something the Palestinians were willing to compromise on a lot on the basis that the majority of refugees would settle within Palestine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 08:43
|
|
|
I dunno. Call me an optimist, but I feel like this plan is unpalatable to the Palestinians (who cares) the Israeli left (lol) and (most importantly) everyone to Bibi's right and / or to anyone trying to attack him from the right, sensing his weakness. Any kind of Palestinian state, even a bantustan pseudo-state, is entirely unpalatable to the extreme right. I allow myself to hope that Trump's blatant ploy to distract from his impeachment (and Bib's corruption charges) has delivered the next election to "just like Bibi but with moderately less blatant corruption", which is apparently our great white hope right now. Edit - and obviously the plan is empty bluster, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. No actual changes to anything other than the state of US / Israeli politics will follow, nor were any any changes ever meant to happen in (quote, unquote) reality. Xander77 fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Jan 30, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 11:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 13:48 |
|
|
Xander77 posted:I dunno. Call me an optimist, but I feel like this plan is unpalatable to the Palestinians (who cares) the Israeli left (lol) and (most importantly) everyone to Bibi's right and / or to anyone trying to attack him from the right, sensing his weakness. Any kind of Palestinian state, even a bantustan pseudo-state, is entirely unpalatable to the extreme right.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 16:00
|
|
