The Palestinian Future
Thinking about Netanyahu's withdrawal of support for a two state solution.... If not a state, and not some sort of annexation/ citizenship within Israel, what's the vision for the longish term future of the gaza and/or west bank palestinians? What else is there? Just status quo indefinitely?
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
I've read several officials (from both sides) saying that Netanyahu didn't really mean in that sense and is already trying to take it back.
Hope is the denial of reality
You think he was just vote pandering?Originally Posted by Loki
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
He was definitely vote pandering. The only question is if he can take this back without severe domestic consequences.
Hope is the denial of reality
As Loki said, it was mostly electioneering to shore up his right wing base in the face of a strong showing by Herzog's list in polling. Furthermore, I think it's somewhat amusing that people are shocked by this - Netanyahu only recently gave public support to the idea of a Palestinian state (in a speech at Bar Ilan a few years back), and even that vision of a state is rather less than the minimum most Palestinians are likely to settle for. It's not news that people on the right in Israel are skeptical about a future Palestinian state, for obvious reasons. In fact, I think a strong argument can be made that the majority of Israelis feel that whether or not a Palestinian state is possible some time in the future, the current security situation and political mess on the Palestinians side makes a real state not particularly likely anytime soon. It doesn't mean they preclude a state from existing at some point in the future, but they don't think it's going to happen any time soon. That was more or less what Netanyahu was promising - under his tenure, they won't achieve full sovereignty.
I think that there are a variety of ideas in Israel about the future for Palestinians. Roughly arranged from right to left they are:
-Full annexation of the West Bank (and possibly the Gaza Strip) without giving the Palestinians citizenship. Encouraging them to 'self deport' through financial incentives, limited rights, etc. Essentially the argument that Jordan is already a Palestinian state, and the Palestinians should go there. Obviously a pretty extreme position that gets awfully close to ethnic cleansing.
-Full annexation of the West Bank (and likely not the Gaza Strip) with citizenship offered to Palestinians, but with strong guarantees in Israel's basic laws enshrining the Jewish character of the state. This is generally held to be a more 'moral' choice than the aforementioned ethnic cleansing, and avoids having to either give up parts of Biblical Israel or get rid of the Palestinians. Generally a position held by people who think the public demographic data is wildly wrong and are remarkably optimistic about the security situation and the Palestinians 'street'. With modifications, a far-left position as well.
-Continuing the status quo indefinitely, with an explicit lack off autonomy for Palestinians. This is sort of the 'inertia' position for people who don't have a workable solution.
-Continuing the status quo with some modifications. Essentially, offer the Palestinians autonomy in Area A and some level of autonomy in Area B in exchange for giving up ambitions towards full sovereignty and accepting the lack of a democratic voice in Israel. Addresses demographic issues, good for security in the Jordan Valley et al, keeps settlements, and might appease some Palestinians. Wildly undemocratic and unlikely to be accepted by the PA, but this is probably what many people in mainstream right wing camps feel is the best they can offer given the security concerns.
-A two state solution with some limits on the Palestinian state. A demilitarized Palestinian state in all of Gaza and most of the West Bank, with some territorial swaps to address settlements. A long term Israeli security presence in the Jordan Valley and Israeli security control (if not complete control) of the Jerusalem area. Essentially, a 'state lite' that is the main offer from Israel since Rabin. Supported by a reasonable chunk of the Israeli center, though many are disillusioned after Oslo, Camp David, the second intifada, and the disengagement. Does not work well with the current Palestinian political and security mess, so unlikely to happen anytime soon - also the general Israeli public position.
-A full two state solution containing a completely sovereign Palestinian state in all of the West Bank and Gaza as well as a East Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. Full evacuation of Israeli settlements, and possibly a right of return for Palestinian refugees wishing to move to Israel and get citizenship/compensation. More or less dead on arrival in Israel, but a position championed by the likes of Meretz and the left wing of Labor. Challenging from a security perspective without a fundamental change in the Palestinian leadership and culture, challenging politically in Israel because of the settlement lobby (and the challenge of relocating a few hundred thousand people), extraordinarily challenging for the right of return. But it has the advantages of being democratic and likely acceptable by mainstream voices in the Palestinian leadership.
-A Palestinian state (or possibly binational state) 'from the river to the sea'. Jews given second class citizen status. A darling of some Palestinians and nutso Israelis. Not going to happen.
-Send the Jews into the sea or back to Poland. Beloved of Hamas and Helen Thomas.
So the point is that there's a wide range of possibilities (with many more variations on these themes), and it doesn't boil down to '2 states' or 'annexation'. In Gaza, Israel has washed their hands of that mess, and what happens there is up to Palestinians. In the West Bank, I suspect people will continue to muddle through with some minimal version of Palestinian autonomy (as currently exists) until the political and security situation changes. Eventually, I suspect something along the lines of a 2 state solution with some limits on the Palestinians will be the solution... but that is not likely to happen any time soon.
"Full annexation of the West Bank (and possibly the Gaza Strip) without giving the Palestinians citizenship. Encouraging them to 'self deport' through financial incentives, limited rights, etc. Essentially the argument that Jordan is already a Palestinian state, and the Palestinians should go there. Obviously a pretty extreme position that gets awfully close to ethnic cleansing."
This is probably closest to securing long term Israeli future. Possibly less extreme - giving them rights outside of vote is acceptable. The only 'financial incentives' I'd be OK with is that of not providing fiscal benefits (ie welfareish stuff).
Yeah, who can possibly object to making someone's religion the main criterion for having the right to vote.
Hope is the denial of reality
Bibi has already backtracked from his earlier statements: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31968676
To be fair, he was careful in his formulation both at Bar Ilan and this week. This week, he didn't say 'I oppose a two state solution', but rather 'during my tenure as PM there won't be a Palestinian state', which instead of a policy statement could be a prediction about the disarray and total powerlessness of the current PA leadership... and is almost certainly correct. Similarly, during his Bar Ilan speech years back, he said he supported a Palestinian state, but couched it in all sorts of restrictions to make it palatable from a security and political perspective.
So... same old, same old.
Oh, and Lewk: I'm happy that the vast majority of Israelis disagree with you.
eh? Who said anything about religion?
Which option would you say the majority of Israelis would be in favor of?
You want Israel to annex a piece of land and then deny the right to vote to only inhabitants of a certain religion. Presumably you don't want to deny the Jewish settlers in the West Bank the right to vote...
Hope is the denial of reality
The Arabs are voting, the Arabs are voting!! There will never be a Palestinian State as long as I'm your PM, so run to the voting booth and re-elect ME!
How is Netanyahu going to form a functional "coalition government" with Arab Israelis after saying shit like that? And can he undo the damage he did to US foreign policy by back-tracking?
Arab Israelis are not and have never been a part of an Israeli coalition government (excluding a handful of Arab Israelis who are members of Zionist parties).
Hope is the denial of reality
The criteria to vote wouldn't require a religious test. The requirement to vote would be to be a citizen today. Citizens that are 'annexed' wouldn't necessarily be citizens (yes I know I used the word) merely having the same basic protections outside of the right to vote. A country can choose the length of time it takes to be a citizen or if it is even possible to become a citizen. Granted I don't know the details of Israeli law but making a bunch of people who hate you a big voting bloc... seems retarded.
You don't see anything wrong with conquering a piece of land and then denying the people living on that land the right to vote? We're not talking about illegal immigrants moving to another country and then not being treated like the citizens. We're talking about people who've lived on that piece of land for centuries being denied the right to vote for reasons outside of their own control.
Hope is the denial of reality
I doubt that in that scenario Christian Palestinians would get the vote.
Congratulations America
Replace 'religion' with 'ethnicity' and Loki's point works just as well.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Probably not, but I imagine Lewk would be more sympathetic to that group.
Hope is the denial of reality
I know. It's not so much fun any longer to be in toe with the extremists if you are one of their targets.
Congratulations America
Not particularly assuming the conquest wasn't particularly wrong. While it isn't an apples to apple comparison the United States still maintains control of territories that we do not allow the populace to vote in elections like the Presidential elections. (Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands). Don't see what the big deal would be if Israel treated that area the same way.
Actually they do vote in federal elections Lewk, including for the Presidency.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Ah yes non-voting delegates... because those matter.
I'm no expert, but I believe that in the case of Guam, they do not have any electoral votes (ditto for some other non-PR territories like USVI, N. Marianas, and American Samoa). They vote for a nonvoting delegate to the House, but otherwise their elections are purely local. PR votes in presidential elections, though.
Of course, that doesn't mean that Lewk's analogy is even remotely useful. Residents of those US territories are, to my knowledge, full US citizens, and should they move to a US state or PR they would be immediately able to vote in all elections. Lewk obviously wouldn't support such an arrangement with the Palestinians.
That being said, I think Lewk is right about one narrow point. Israel would not be denying citizenship or democratic representation on the basis of ethnicity, or religion, or geography. They would be denying it based on nationality - Israeli Arabs would continue to have voting rights, while Palestinian Arabs would not. That doesn't make his proposal any better, but it does at least strip the argument of its racist overtones, and just leaves you with an undemocratic mess.
If you presented all of the choices I listed (or even more gradations), I don't know if you would get a majority for any single option, though there would probably be a plurality in favor of the 'limited' two state solution at some point in the future. In a head-to-head contest between any two choices, that is probably what would win in most cases. In simple up or down polling, a consistent majority of Israelis support the concept of a two state solution, with support ranging from the low 50s to mid 60s depending on whether Israeli towns have been shelled lately. In more detailed questioning, a majority tends to be unhappy with some of the provisions agreed to in some rounds of negotiations, though, so they probably have a fairly limited concept of what a Palestinian state would entail.
Interestingly, in Palestinian polling, the goal of establishing 'historic Palestine' from the river to the sea tends to get a healthy majority, with a fairly modest chunk instead striving for a two state solution. That may not be particularly surprising, though, from the populace that also consistently supports suicide bombings against civilian targets (full disclosure: I believe there was a poll last year where 'only' 46% or so of Palestinians supported suicide bombings, down from the high 60s during the second intifada; unclear if this is a secular trend or a cyclical one, though).
Puerto Rico has the option of becoming a state but chooses not to. As for the rest: as wig points out, their vote for federal elections counts as soon as they move to one of the 50 states. Regardless, there's a difference in scale when it comes to not allowing a 1% of the population to vote versus not allowing over a third of the population to vote. You don't see the democratic problem of claiming some territory to be part of your country and then not allowing people who live in that territory to vote?
And yet Jewish settlers get to vote, despite not living in Israel-proper.
This is a pretty interesting (and under studied) topic. The Palestinians by and large don't support terrorism, defined as violence targeting civilians (by a small majority). And support for suicide bombings fluctuates. However, they don't believe any Israelis are actually civilians, which explains how a Gaza poll can show 50% opposing terrorism, but 90% supporting the bombing of discotheques. Support for extremist policies also tends to be highest in areas directly affected by fighting. This is true in both Israel and Palestine. The difference is that while only very small parts of Israel are regularly exposed to political violence, virtually all Palestinians are.That may not be particularly surprising, though, from the populace that also consistently supports suicide bombings against civilian targets (full disclosure: I believe there was a poll last year where 'only' 46% or so of Palestinians supported suicide bombings, down from the high 60s during the second intifada; unclear if this is a secular trend or a cyclical one, though).
Hope is the denial of reality
Yes the scale is different but I don't see a problem with the principle. There are always trade off when it comes to the necessary evil of government. At this point taking over territory and ruling it for security concerns w/o giving the right of some of the folks there is less bad than other options. In a vacuum I get the issue but reality sometimes has to to intrude. If Israel wasn't under the constant threat of terrorism and hateful neighbors I'd think differently.
Right, and that would be a problem if Israel ever granted citizenship to Palestinians living in the WB and Gaza. But if they didn't do so, that wouldn't be an issue per se since Israeli citizens (Jewish or not) who move to the WB are not being 'granted' citizenship and voting rights in preference to Palestinians; rather, they just keep rights they already had.
I think it's a terrible idea and undemocratic and an absolute disaster, but I don't think it's racist as such.
Yes, subtleties like this explain lots of odd polling in the region. Polls that assume that the polled and pollers have a common set of definitions can often lead to misleading outcomes - cf what I mentioned earlier about more Israelis supporting a 'two state solution' than a more detailed question explaining the parameters of a Palestinian state.This is a pretty interesting (and under studied) topic. The Palestinians by and large don't support terrorism, defined as violence targeting civilians (by a small majority). And support for suicide bombings fluctuates. However, they don't believe any Israelis are actually civilians, which explains how a Gaza poll can show 50% opposing terrorism, but 90% supporting the bombing of discotheques. Support for extremist policies also tends to be highest in areas directly affected by fighting. This is true in both Israel and Palestine. The difference is that while only very small parts of Israel are regularly exposed to political violence, virtually all Palestinians are.
I'm curious, though, about your assertion that virtually all Palestinians are regularly exposed to political violence - unless you're using a much broader definition of violence than I am, the WB has been pretty quiet for the last decade or so. You're right, though, that for a long time the 'Tel Aviv bubble' phenomenon meant that a good 3 million Israelis didn't have much to worry about on a day-to-day basis, once the 2nd intifada was defeated. Longer range weaponry from the north and south, however, are starting to make that bubble burst.
If the US gave citizenship to anyone born anywhere who was white and made it illegal for blacks to marry whites, you wouldn't call the situation racist? Because this is in essence what Israel is doing. The policy wouldn't be racist/xenophobic only if citizenship didn't already discriminate on an ethnic basis.
The only detailed polls I've seen were of Gaza (which is not to say that there aren't any of the West Bank), and given the population density of the area and the regular Israeli attacks against it, you'll be hard-pressed to find anyone whose relatives weren't mistreated by the Israelis (I remember seeing a study that suggested that well over 2/3 of Gazans have had a relative killed/wounded by Israeli troops, though the number was possibly inflated by incentives to make this kind of a claim). And of course the occupation itself is a very obvious and visible sign of political violence.I'm curious, though, about your assertion that virtually all Palestinians are regularly exposed to political violence - unless you're using a much broader definition of violence than I am, the WB has been pretty quiet for the last decade or so. You're right, though, that for a long time the 'Tel Aviv bubble' phenomenon meant that a good 3 million Israelis didn't have much to worry about on a day-to-day basis, once the 2nd intifada was defeated. Longer range weaponry from the north and south, however, are starting to make that bubble burst.
Hope is the denial of reality
No, this would be like the US granting citizenship to children of US citizens who are living in a US-administered territory even if the other residents of said territory don't have citizenship - like, say, the Insular Government in the Philippines. Israeli settlers don't achieve citizenship by the Law of Return; rather, they achieve it by already being citizens (or their parents being so). It's not an ethnic or religious question - those Israeli Arabs who live in the WB and East Jerusalem similarly keep their citizenship irrespective of the status of the territory they live in. It's a nationality distinction.
I don't disagree that the fundamental purpose underlying such a theoretical policy would be to minimize the demographic consequences of annexing Palestinian territory, which is at least latently racist (or religionist or whatever). I just don't think that the policy would of necessity have to be so; just the motivation would be.
Of course, this is a largely theoretical discussion since (a) it will never happen, and (b) I don't support such a policy.
Absolutely agreed on Gaza; I was just questioning the WB.The only detailed polls I've seen were of Gaza (which is not to say that there aren't any of the West Bank), and given the population density of the area and the regular Israeli attacks against it, you'll be hard-pressed to find anyone whose relatives weren't mistreated by the Israelis (I remember seeing a study that suggested that well over 2/3 of Gazans have had a relative killed/wounded by Israeli troops, though the number was possibly inflated by incentives to make this kind of a claim). And of course the occupation itself is a very obvious and visible sign of political violence.
I always thought US citizen can still vote for the president when they live abroad. If that is correct, what happens if a US citizen move from a US state to a US territory?
I find the concept of territories quite a bit outdated. Interestingly I would guess that the fast majority of Europeans wouldn't even know that the US has territories if you asked them.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote