Middle East Defence & Security

[ngatimozart]

@Big_Zucchini Thanks for your informative reply. Well you certainly do have a problem with Hamas then. You are in the damned if you do, and damned if you don't position. You can't exactly spit the dummy, pack up your toys and go home.

Using Israeli soldiers for hearts and minds, may have been the wrong approach to start with because the soldiers are seen as the enemy and would not be trusted at all. A civilian agency approach may have been better with the IDF providing security. Sometimes it's little nuances like that which make all the difference.

During the 1990s there was a rebellion on the island of Bougainville in Papua New Guinea over the large copper mine there. The local inhabitants were not receiving any of the benefits of the mine and it was ruining their traditional fishing, hunting, and growing areas. These are some of the fiercest tribesmen in the world and were headhunters and cannibals one or two generations back. They did have valid concerns because the royalties from the mine were going to the government in Port Moresby and Bougainville wasn't seeing a cent.

So the Bougainvilleans picked upped arms forced the mine to close and declared that they wanted their freedom. There was fighting between them and the government forces. At this point Australia and NZ were asked to mediate. A team from a RNZN survey ship put ashore in Bougainville but they went unarmed except for a guitar. Us Māori are known for our culture, partofwhich is music, singing, dancing, and of course the haka. The shore party met up with some locals and did what we always do at home on our own tribal grounds - greet each other with songs, dance, and speeches in friendship.

This had never been tried before and was a gamble, but it worked and gained the trust of the locals. It was the suggestion of one of the senior rates aboard the ship and the ship's CO went with it. The Bougainville party went aboard the ship and agreed to negotiations with the PNG government. These were held at Burnham Military Camp here in NZ and an agreement was reached between the two parties with Australia and NZ as guarantors.

So sometimes a different cultural approach can be taken that may break the ice, lead to a break through, and eventually to a peace. It's finding that approach and having the courage to take it that's difficult.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

@Big_Zucchini Thanks for your informative reply. Well you certainly do have a problem with Hamas then. You are in the damned if you do, and damned if you don't position. You can't exactly spit the dummy, pack up your toys and go home.

Using Israeli soldiers for hearts and minds, may have been the wrong approach to start with because the soldiers are seen as the enemy and would not be trusted at all. A civilian agency approach may have been better with the IDF providing security. Sometimes it's little nuances like that which make all the difference.

During the 1990s there was a rebellion on the island of Bougainville in Papua New Guinea over the large copper mine there. The local inhabitants were not receiving any of the benefits of the mine and it was ruining their traditional fishing, hunting, and growing areas. These are some of the fiercest tribesmen in the world and were headhunters and cannibals one or two generations back. They did have valid concerns because the royalties from the mine were going to the government in Port Moresby and Bougainville wasn't seeing a cent.

So the Bougainvilleans picked upped arms forced the mine to close and declared that they wanted their freedom. There was fighting between them and the government forces. At this point Australia and NZ were asked to mediate. A team from a RNZN survey ship put ashore in Bougainville but they went unarmed except for a guitar. Us Māori are known for our culture, partofwhich is music, singing, dancing, and of course the haka. The shore party met up with some locals and did what we always do at home on our own tribal grounds - greet each other with songs, dance, and speeches in friendship.

This had never been tried before and was a gamble, but it worked and gained the trust of the locals. It was the suggestion of one of the senior rates aboard the ship and the ship's CO went with it. The Bougainville party went aboard the ship and agreed to negotiations with the PNG government. These were held at Burnham Military Camp here in NZ and an agreement was reached between the two parties with Australia and NZ as guarantors.

So sometimes a different cultural approach can be taken that may break the ice, lead to a break through, and eventually to a peace. It's finding that approach and having the courage to take it that's difficult.

That's an inspiring and warming story. But I'm afraid the level of bad blood between Palestinians and Israelis is at least an order of magnitude higher.
And so this leaves us with very few choices, and as you said, we're damned no matter how we act.

 

[Feanor]

@Big_Zucchini Thanks for your informative reply. Well you certainly do have a problem with Hamas then. You are in the damned if you do, and damned if you don't position. You can't exactly spit the dummy, pack up your toys and go home.

Using Israeli soldiers for hearts and minds, may have been the wrong approach to start with because the soldiers are seen as the enemy and would not be trusted at all. A civilian agency approach may have been better with the IDF providing security. Sometimes it's little nuances like that which make all the difference.

During the 1990s there was a rebellion on the island of Bougainville in Papua New Guinea over the large copper mine there. The local inhabitants were not receiving any of the benefits of the mine and it was ruining their traditional fishing, hunting, and growing areas. These are some of the fiercest tribesmen in the world and were headhunters and cannibals one or two generations back. They did have valid concerns because the royalties from the mine were going to the government in Port Moresby and Bougainville wasn't seeing a cent.

So the Bougainvilleans picked upped arms forced the mine to close and declared that they wanted their freedom. There was fighting between them and the government forces. At this point Australia and NZ were asked to mediate. A team from a RNZN survey ship put ashore in Bougainville but they went unarmed except for a guitar. Us Māori are known for our culture, partofwhich is music, singing, dancing, and of course the haka. The shore party met up with some locals and did what we always do at home on our own tribal grounds - greet each other with songs, dance, and speeches in friendship.

This had never been tried before and was a gamble, but it worked and gained the trust of the locals. It was the suggestion of one of the senior rates aboard the ship and the ship's CO went with it. The Bougainville party went aboard the ship and agreed to negotiations with the PNG government. These were held at Burnham Military Camp here in NZ and an agreement was reached between the two parties with Australia and NZ as guarantors.

So sometimes a different cultural approach can be taken that may break the ice, lead to a break through, and eventually to a peace. It's finding that approach and having the courage to take it that's difficult.

I'm not familiar with the history. Were there decades of violence and tensions, as well as a seizure of a huge quantity of land by incoming outsiders? Keep in mind the violence between Israelis and Palestinians predates the existence of Israel as a state. To the best of my knowledge major clashes in modern history began with the Balfour declaration under the British Mandate.

 

[Ananda]

Saudi Arabia at Bahrain conference: Normalization with Israel possibility

Saudi's FM said it was important to get Israel and the Palestinians back to the negotiating table.

www.jpost.com

However there's still bottom line; a workable Palestinian State. This's what I also put on other thread related to potential normalisation of Arab Gulf Kingdoms with Israel. There's has to be workable Palestinian State. Al Jazeera post on same statement is direct than JPost, and state Saudi still want 1967 boundaries for Palestinian State.

Honestly with how Gulf Kingdoms work with each other, except Qatar, all other including UAE will not do anything unless some tacit approval from Saudi (that's why Qatar being isolated, they dare doing something without Saudi's approval). Thus UAE normalisation means it's first test from Saudi's and the Gulf Kingdoms to see how Israel will move on Palestinian issue.

I'm very doubtful that Israel wants return all West Bank to 1967 border due to Security and most importantly Internal Israel Politics. Too many of West Bank settlements being allocated to new Jewish Imigrants from Europe especially Eastern and French. I also doubt Israel will release 100% control of West Bank-Jordan border. Something that West Bank will need to become fully sovereign state.

So the thinking that Gulf Kingdoms will not put the condition of Palestinian for normalisation especially from Saudi's, so far shown that's not the reality. Gulf Kingdoms especially the Saudi's have enough internal problem controlling militants thinking in their own population. They will not normalise with Israel, until Israel will give something acceptable for Palestinian solutions.

There's always Militants thinking in Arab World's toward Israel. Even In Israel there's also Militant thinking that want complete cleansing of the Palestinian (even those that already become Israel citizen) from the land of Judea. However I don't think even Netanyahu as the most right wing Israel PM, dare to do it. Thus either Israel give 1967 occupied land and agreement on joint control for East Jerusalem (old City), or Israel take all Palestinian as citizen (one country solution).

The Bosnian model can be use. Just like in Bosnia where there will be area control by Bosnian Serb, Bosnian Croats, and Bosnian Muslim (Bosniak), where population movement control being enforce to guarantee each particular area always have majority of each ethnics. Same thing can happen where West Bank and Gaza will always have Palestinian Majority and control, while the rest of Israel will always have Jewish and Israel control.

That way Israel as state will keep control all current International border and thus it's security. The Palestinian will have jurisdiction and control of West Bank and Gaza, but the security will back to state of Israel, as they're part of State of Israel.

Unless Israel want to relinquish all occupied territory and let Palestinian as independent and sovereign state handle 100% security and Military (which I doubt most Right Wing Israel willing to let go), then one country solution is the only thing left.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

I'm not familiar with the history. Were there decades of violence and tensions, as well as a seizure of a huge quantity of land by incoming outsiders? Keep in mind the violence between Israelis and Palestinians predates the existence of Israel as a state. To the best of my knowledge major clashes in modern history began with the Balfour declaration under the British Mandate.

To be fair the Balfour declaration was no more than a bad day for most of the locals.
At the time of the declaration, modern day Israel and Palestine were scarcely populated, and its highest potential areas, the coastline for example and the Galilee, was mostly undeveloped.
A fast drive by many Arab and Jewish outsiders to develop and populate these areas, fueled clashes between them.
The only places that were previously highly populated are today's West Bank, the Galilee, and of course the major cities Jerusalem, Haifa, Acre, Hebron.
It certainly didn't help that by the time of Israel's creation, there were already numerous independent Arab states around it that were keen to expand their influence and wouldn't face a local backlash because they weren't killing Arabs.
It was, at the time, not so different from today's ME conflicts where foreigners try to intervene, just the bloodshed was on a smaller scale because it wasn't some 50 million people country.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

I'm very doubtful that Israel wants return all West Bank to 1967 border due to Security and most importantly Internal Israel Politics.

The Israeli public dealt with more than that, like the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza whose results we see today. It's almost entirely security related, specifically because the West Bank is a mountainous area lying considerably above the low flat Israeli center, and directly overlooking Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, even Haifa and Ashdod. And of course strategic sites like the Ben Gurion air port.
The current idea is to create a security belt a few kilometers in, to create a proper surveillance and early warning network.

Too many of West Bank settlements being allocated to new Jewish Imigrants from Europe especially Eastern and French.

This issue is widely misrepresented. There are 3 categories of settlements. All they have in common is that they do not have a governmental support.
1)Large legitimate settlements in area C - Ariel, Ma'ale Adumim, Modi'in Illit etc, are settlements approved by the government, but new construction has been frozen for many years (renovations are allowed). There's a consensus with the PA that those must stay and will be annexed by Israel in return for an equal land swap (more or less, previous deals gave the Palestinians roughly 97% of their current land after land swaps).

2)Small legitimate settlements in area C - Development is particularly slow, if at all, and are considered expendable by the government in case of a future deal. That is, it can withdraw from them with relative ease. Numerous, but the real factor is the total population, which is low.

3)Illegitimate Jewish outposts in all areas - Extremist settler factions build small outposts from caravans and shipping containers. Routinely dismantled by the government, and a frequent source of clashes with Israeli security and law enforcement agencies.

The settlement issue is much less an obstacle than it is portrayed. The big settlements aren't even big. Barely call them cities. The small ones are easy to dismantle and the government had no issue doing so near Gaza for example. And the outposts are already routinely destroyed.
The vast majority of "settlers", as defined by some foreign bodies, are residents of East Jerusalem, which Israel will continue insisting is part of the unified Jerusalem.

Even In Israel there's also Militant thinking that want complete cleansing of the Palestinian

Yeah, but we also have elected officials in the Parliament who believe our soldiers are blood thirsty murderers (Joint List) and want a complete Islamization of Israel (Raam-Taal party). They're like, what, 10% of our Knesset?

Thus either Israel give 1967 occupied land and agreement on joint control for East Jerusalem (old City), or Israel take all Palestinian as citizen (one country solution).

You only think those are the two solutions because they're the old and known ones.
Trump's solution wasn't very good IMO, but it shows that you can at least be more creative than that with a map.
Many more potential solutions exist. We'll have to wait and see.

 

[Beholder]

This is israeli government position about settlements:

https://embassies.gov.il/abuja/AboutIsrael/Pages/Israeli-Settlements-and-Law.aspx

Also there are several rulings of Israeli Supreme court about land status and application of international law.

The general point of departure of all parties – which is also our point of departure – is that Israel holds the area in belligerent occupation (occupatio bellica). See HCJ 619/78 “El Tal’ia” Weekly v. Minister of Defense; HCJ 69/81 Abu Ita v. Commander of the Area of Judea and Samaria; HCJ 606/78 Ayoob v. Minister of Defense; HCJ 393/82 Jam'iat Ascan Elma’almoon Eltha’aooniah Elmahduda Elmaoolieh v. Commander of the IDF Forces in the Area of Judea and Samaria. In the areas relevant to this petition, military administration, headed by the military commander, continues to apply. Compare HCJ 2717/96 Wafa v. Minister of Defense (application of the military administration in “Area C”). The authority of the military commander flows from the provisions of public international law regarding belligerent occupation. These rules are established principally in the Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907 [hereinafter – the Hague Regulations]. These regulations reflect customary international law. The military commander’s authority is also anchored in IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 1949. [hereinafter – the Fourth Geneva Convention]. The question of the application of the Fourth Geneva Convention has come up more than once in this Court. See HCJ 390/79 Duikat v. Government of Israel; HCJ 61/80 Haetzni v. State of Israel, at 597. The question is not before us now, since the parties agree that the humanitarian rules of the Fourth Geneva Convention apply to the issue under review. See HCJ 698/80 Kawasme v. Minister of Defense; Jam'iyat Ascan, at 794; Ajuri, at 364; HCJ 3278/02 Center for the Defense of the Individual v. Commander of the IDF Forces in the West Bank Area, at 396. See also Meir Shamgar, The Observance of International Law in the Administered Territories, 1 Israel Yearbook on Human Rights 262 (1971).

http://www.haaretz.com/hasite/images/iht_daily/D010704/hcfen0604.rtf

Bottom line is all agree that territories occupied, settlements are temporary, final status will be determined upon negotiations.
Difference in opinion is if settlements are legal. Namely this 2 provisions of article 49 of Geneva convention:

Article 49 (1) states

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

Article 49 (6) states

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

Naturally whether you believe that lands are palestinian or disputed(ownership should be settled in negotiations) is going to influence perception of situation.

Geneva convention in part of population moving does not prohibit population returning to lands they ancestor were living in. And a lot of settlements were jewish in 192X. It also don't talk about land occupied from nonstate actor(there was no palistinian state on this lands), or from party that holds land unlawfully(Egypt& Jordan).

Then there is Jerusalem issue.

Also Israel mostly concentrate on security situation.

International community pressuring Israel to act to solve situation in any way outside of direct negotiations with palestinians will not go anywhere. IMO
If you disagree, then say in what way are you going to pressure Israel and to what end?
If agree, then why international community does not push both parties to negotiate, but concentrate on Israel?

I personally don't see this conflict as villains vs victims(bcs no point in doing this). Fact is this can be resolved either by israeli unilateral actions, or direct negotiations. And israelies have no consensus.

Also before you rush to resolve this conflict immediately, because of real or perceived palestinian suffering, consider what future will palestinians have. Look at economic data, government ability to rule, rule of law.

Anyway, there are palestinians polls site:

Index PSR Polls | PCPSR

www.pcpsr.org

Last 2 polls are interesting, as they come after Trump proposal.

 

[Ananda]

The Israeli public dealt with more than that, like the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza whose results we see today.

Yes, that's my point. Will Israel relinquish total control of West Bank, considering what happen in Gaza ?

You only think those are the two solutions because they're the old and known ones.

And what other solutions ? Either you take them in, or you pull out completely. That what happen with occupation.

then why international community does not push both parties to negotiate, but concentrate on Israel?

Because Israel is the occupier. Same thing when Indonesia annex East Timor. No matter how much diplomacy being conducted Internationally, the majority of International community will not recognize Indonesia occupation of East Timor. Indonesia annex East Timor also due security issue, since the Left Wing Revolutionary thinking Fretilin seems winning the conflict against Right Wing Apodete and UDT that Indonesia backed (with US and Australia in behind).

The Indonesian Military continue support occupation of East Timor due looking more on security issue. The civilian bureaucracy actually not really enthusiasts more in time. Especially since they see East Timor continue bleeding Indonesia budget, small economics value (even with offshore oil and gas in Timor Gap) and continue burdening Indonesian diplomatic effort.

Thus when Soeharto downfall happen, his Civilian VP Habibie take over. Backed by most Civilian bureaucracy, he than put Referendum option for stay within Indonesia as special autonomous status (take them in option) or complete independent (pull out option). He put that in table with many objections from Military. This results with East Timor crisis after referendum.

So, off course Isreal will be push by most International community. Off course Israel will continue having diplomatic problems Internationally. Off course Israel image will continue picture as occupiers or even apartheid policy especially by some of the Leftist in Europe or even US.

Indonesia have three domestic insurgance conflicts during Soeharto regime. One solved by referendum (East Timor), one solved by special autonomous (Aceh, because that's what most acehnese wants special autonomous under syaria laws), while the other one (West Papua) still happening (eventough basically it's happen sporadically in only several area).

However from those three, International community will not call Indonesia as occupiers on Aceh and West Papua (only small minority like Vanuatu still call Papua occupation and some Left Wing organization). This because Aceh and West Papua were part of Dutch East Indies, and Indonesia Internationally recognize as inheritor of Dutch East Indies.
East Timor never be part of Dutch East Indies, thus again most of International community will not going to recognize Indonesian annexation, and call it occupied East Timor.

Back to West Bank and Gaza, off course the International pressure will mostly going to be on Israel and not to the Palestinian. Just like when Indonesia occupied East Timor, the pressure were to Indonesia and not to the East Timorese organization.

That's what happens with nation that doing the occupation. You can't complaint that International community not treating Israel fairly. Just like Indonesia complaint in UN being treated unfair diplomatically during East Timor occupation. Occupiers will always got negative image and being attack by negative campaigns.

That's what I say, Israel in the end will be the one who need to decide whether you take them in or you pull out. Cause that's the options that occupiers had.

 

[Beholder]

Because Israel is the occupier. Same thing when Indonesia annex East Timor. No matter how much diplomacy being conducted Internationally, the majority of International community will not recognize Indonesia occupation of East Timor. Indonesia annex East Timor also due security issue, since the Left Wing Revolutionary thinking Fretilin seems winning the conflict against Right Wing Apodete and UDT that Indonesia backed (with US and Australia in behind).

The Indonesian Military continue support occupation of East Timor due looking more on security issue. The civilian bureaucracy actually not really enthusiasts more in time. Especially since they see East Timor continue bleeding Indonesia budget, small economics value (even with offshore oil and gas in Timor Gap) and continue burdening Indonesian diplomatic effort.

Thus when Soeharto downfall happen, his Civilian VP Habibie take over. Backed by most Civilian bureaucracy, he than put Referendum option for stay within Indonesia as special autonomous status (take them in option) or complete independent (pull out option). He put that in table with many objections from Military. This results with East Timor crisis after referendum.

So, off course Isreal will be push by most International community. Off course Israel will continue having diplomatic problems Internationally. Off course Israel image will continue picture as occupiers or even apartheid policy especially by some of the Leftist in Europe or even US.

Indonesia have three domestic insurgance conflicts during Soeharto regime. One solved by referendum (East Timor), one solved by special autonomous (Aceh, because that's what most acehnese wants special autonomous under syaria laws), while the other one (West Papua) still happening (eventough basically it's happen sporadically in only several area).

However from those three, International community will not call Indonesia as occupiers on Aceh and West Papua (only small minority like Vanuatu still call Papua occupation and some Left Wing organization). This because Aceh and West Papua were part of Dutch East Indies, and Indonesia Internationally recognize as inheritor of Dutch East Indies.
East Timor never be part of Dutch East Indies, thus again most of International community will not going to recognize Indonesian annexation, and call it occupied East Timor.

You really consider it's same situation? I do not for many reasons. One thing in common that i see is right of self determination for pal-s.
Anyway it is interesting comparison. As far as solution go, referendum won't solve issues of territories, or security.
Autonomy they have now.

Back to West Bank and Gaza, off course the International pressure will mostly going to be on Israel and not to the Palestinian. Just like when Indonesia occupied East Timor, the pressure were to Indonesia and not to the East Timorese organization.

That's what happens with nation that doing the occupation. You can't complaint that International community not treating Israel fairly. Just like Indonesia complaint in UN being treated unfair diplomatically during East Timor occupation. Occupiers will always got negative image and being attack by negative campaigns.

That's what I say, Israel in the end will be the one who need to decide whether you take them in or you pull out. Cause that's the options that occupiers had.

I'm not complaining, i don't understand motive. You think it's custom to pressure occupying power. I tend to agree in some way.
I don't believe that Israel fears international pressure. I think that we ourselves don't know what to do with situation. As i said Israel is stronger party, so have ability to enforce any resolution, but what is going on now is that we enforcing status quo.
Having said that, not pushing pal-s to negotiate will only continue what we have now for near mid term.
You see initially solution was direct negotiations, Israel bound by this, Israel not bound by international opinion. So we can't decide take them in(it only possible if pal-s themselves ask) or pull out(here we have internal objections and security concerns, after Gaza withdrawal, there was another withdrawal planed, but it failed ultimately).
Anyway i guess it will take more time to solve.

 

[Ananda]

really consider it's same situation? I do not for many reasons. One thing in common that i see is right of self determination for pal-s.

It's the same, You occupied West Bank and Gaza through Military invasion. Indonesia occupied East Timor also through Military invasion. Saying that is not the same, only serve your own ego. However in the matter of International community is the same.

Israel not bound by international opinion. So we can't decide take them in(it only possible if pal-s themselves ask) or pull out(here we have internal objections and security concerns, after Gaza withdrawal, there was another withdrawal planed, but it failed ultimately).

You can say that since US still strongly backing Israel. In same manner Indonesia under Soeharto also don't care on International community, when US still backing Indonesia position especially during cold war.

Sooner or latter US position will have risk to shift. Without US who will back Israel with the same compassion ? Egypt, Jordan, UAE are normalising under US influence, don't think it's only due to Israel diplomacy.

My point is still it's Israel that going to be pressure to provide solution. Palestinian will be in the place to take offer. Whether you take them in or you pull out, it's always in the occupier position to offer.

Just like Palestinian, the East Timorese also will not have chance to beat the occupier Military. Thus they will always be in the possition of the distress party and will struggle to keep gaining International sympathy to push the occupier to come out with solution.
The solution offer will always have to come from occupiers. This's happen with so many countries that try to gain Independent from their collonial occupiers. Do you think Israel will exist if British in the end did not offer their "solutions"?

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Yes, that's my point. Will Israel relinquish total control of West Bank, considering what happen in Gaza ?

Yes and no. It will eventually have to, but probably under an arrangement that will ensure its safety, for example a slow gradual withdrawal with the intent of simultaneously building trust.

And what other solutions ? Either you take them in, or you pull out completely. That what happen with occupation.

Have Egypt annex Gaza, or have Palestinians transfer in part to Jordan where they will have arable lands which they currently lack in the West Bank, while the West Bank's eastern area will remain demilitarized.
Or expand them into the Negev and take the western half of the West Bank. Just to name a few.

Because Israel is the occupier. Same thing when Indonesia annex East Timor. No matter how much diplomacy being conducted Internationally, the majority of International community will not recognize Indonesia occupation of East Timor.

The difference lies in the whomst was the occupied party.
Israel did not occupy it from the Palestinians - it occupied it from Jordan after it waged war on Israel together with Egypt and Syria.

The idea to give the West Bank to Palestinians rather than Jordan, is a result of the Palestinian revolt against the Hashemite rule in Jordan, and a more humanitarian approach to the conflict.

Back to West Bank and Gaza, off course the International pressure will mostly going to be on Israel and not to the Palestinian. Just like when Indonesia occupied East Timor, the pressure were to Indonesia and not to the East Timorese organization.

That's not so obvious. The international community saw what happens when an occupier withdraws unilaterally. It only makes matters worse, by far.

 

[Beholder]

It's the same, You occupied West Bank and Gaza through Military invasion. Indonesia occupied East Timor also through Military invasion. Saying that is not the same, only serve your own ego. However in the matter of International community is the same.

We conquered it from Egypt and Jordan. Both won't take it back. And arguably in a defensive war.

You can say that since US still strongly backing Israel. In same manner Indonesia under Soeharto also don't care on International community, when US still backing Indonesia position especially during cold war.

Sooner or latter US position will have risk to shift. Without US who will back Israel with the same compassion ? Egypt, Jordan, UAE are normalising under US influence, don't think it's only due to Israel diplomacy.

You misunderstand, Israel do care about international opinion because it is used in internal debate among other things(by both sides of argument btw.). Don't fear, because there is nothing you can actually do to force us.
Also dynamic of US-Israeli relationship is different. It's not government driven, it's ppl and value driven.
Egypt and Jordan wanted territories back, they gained it from us, not from US. UAE normalising under Iran "influence".

My point is still it's Israel that going to be pressure to provide solution. Palestinian will be in the place to take offer. Whether you take them in or you pull out, it's always in the occupier position to offer.

Just like Palestinian, the East Timorese also will not have chance to beat the occupier Military. Thus they will always be in the possition of the distress party and will struggle to keep gaining International sympathy to push the occupier to come out with solution.
The solution offer will always have to come from occupiers. This's happen with so many countries that try to gain Independent from their collonial occupiers. Do you think Israel will exist if British in the end did not offer their "solutions"?

British threw ball back to UN, but I get the point.

 

[Ananda]

will eventually have to, but probably under an arrangement that will ensure its safety, for example a slow gradual withdrawal with the intent of simultaneously building trust.

Well if that's happened, that's good. Mean Israel ready to relinquish all West Bank eventually. However that's not the Israeli Right Wing says. After all they're in power now. Netanyahu still want to take close to 1/3 of West Bank and his plan already circulate. Even Trump doesn't want to endorse that. Again if Israel choose to take pull out option, then as occupier, it's has to be complete or near complete pull out and provide Palestinian with workable territory for workable state. Palestinian State that intersect with 'islands' of Israel settlement, is not something that Palestinian, Arab World, even many in US will accept. It will not give workable Palestinian State.

Egypt annex Gaza, or have Palestinians transfer in part to Jordan where they will have arable lands which they currently lack in the West Bank, while the West Bank's eastern area will remain demilitarized.

Israel did not occupy it from the Palestinians - it occupied it from Jordan after it waged war on Israel together with Egypt and Syria.

The idea to give the West Bank to Palestinians rather than Jordan, is a result of the Palestinian revolt against the Hashemite rule in Jordan, and a more humanitarian approach to the conflict.

We conquered it from Egypt and Jordan. Both won't take it back. And arguably in a defensive war.

I'll try to answer it altogether because I see it related. Yes, you take West Bank and Gaza from both Egypt and Jordan. I also know in Camp David Israel want to give back Gaza as part of Sinai settlement, however Egypt did not want to. Just like Jordan relinquish it's claim to West Bank.

Off course Israel will prefer to have settlement of Gaza with Egypt, and reach settlement of Palestinian West Bank with Jordan. Israel will be able to push Palestinian problem to Jordan and Egypt. Egypt not want to be burden with Gaza, and also the way I read it, it's the Jordan that have more reason not to accept West Bank back than the Palestinian West Bank refusal to be integrated back to Jordan. Jordan already has Palestinian as significant part of their population (heck their Queen is Palestinian). Don't think they will accept more.

Thus like it or not as occupier, Palestinian solutions will have to come from Israel. Israel are the one that will have to give the offer on the table. Whether it's the results of defensive war as you guys in Israel like it to call (the Arab will say differently cause 1967 war was done by Israel invasion first, unlike Yom Kippur in 1974), but again in International view and law you're the occupier.

Indonesia doesn't have to give East Timorese referendum. Habibie move take not only US and Aussies (as Indonesia prime backers on East Timor) by surprise, but also East Timorese. Xanana Gusmao even says that he only expects Habibie will give them Special Autonomous Government but still within Republic of Indonesia. However the way his administration thinking was to give East Timorese option of; either you with us or you out.

Again I put East Timor example, cause any occupiers especially that occupied territory due to Military actions, will have to be the one that give offer of solutions. So the solution will not come first in the table from Palestinian, Israel that like it or not has to workout and put in the table solutions that most Palestinian will take.

The Israel-Palestine Debate Is Expanding—but the Options Are Only Shrinking

Are we running out of time for a two-state solution, or has the time already run out?

slate.com

I know from you guys posts, you will not like this solution. I also know this solution is mostly being put forward by Israel Leftist perhaps in Tel Aviv. However this solution also gaining some support from factions in US Left even Liberal US Jews.

Thus unless the Israel Right Wings give proper solution for two state soon, this solution in time I believe will gain momentum. Especially if the Left both in Israel and US, begin to lose patience. Like it or not those Leftist are going to be part of Biden administration.
Even some in Palestinian already thinking on this too.

So proponent of Two State solutions in my opinion need to work fast for workable Palestinian State offering, or risk the other solution gaining momentum from currently mostly on the acedemians Leftist. I talk about Bosnian model in my post, the Israeli acedemians seems talk about Belgium model. Either way the longer two state solution keep in the disputed talk, the more likely more people both in Israel and Palestinian look on this solution.

Like I say, either you take them (one state solution) or you pull out and give them proper workable state (two state solution). The choices is in Israel hand as occupier administration.

 

[Beholder]

Thus like it or not as occupier, Palestinian solutions will have to come from Israel. Israel are the one that will have to give the offer on the table. Whether it's the results of defensive war as you guys in Israel like it to call (the Arab will say differently cause 1967 war was done by Israel invasion first, unlike Yom Kippur in 1974), but again in International view and law you're the occupier.

View yes, law no. Under international law we have obligations to population on these territories, but have no obligation to create state, or cede territories to such state. What rights pal-s have to state comes from either right of self determination, or form bilateral agreement with Israel under Oslo.

The Israel-Palestine Debate Is Expanding—but the Options Are Only Shrinking

Are we running out of time for a two-state solution, or has the time already run out?

slate.com

I know from you guys posts, you will not like this solution. I also know this solution is mostly being put forward by Israel Leftist perhaps in Tel Aviv. However this solution also gaining some support from factions in US Left even Liberal US Jews.

Don't put all israelis under one banner, most of our problems is because we divided on this issue, i for example don't care, as long as one state is confederation of some sort. I will also accept 2 states(rather 3 states now), or annexing settlements and declare our borders, then withdrawal from other areas, also will accept status quo, till other solution available. Only solution i don't like is based on population transfer(palestinian or israeli) and i don't like it on humanitarian ground only.
But one state solution without confederation is very difficult to implement, there will be opposition from both sides and not peaceful too.

Thus unless the Israel Right Wings give proper solution for two state soon, this solution in time I believe will gain momentum. Especially if the Left both in Israel and US, begin to lose patience. Like it or not those Leftist are going to be part of Biden administration.
Even some in Palestinian already thinking on this too.

Israel several times approached palestinians with 2 state solutions proposals, 3 times i personally witnessed. Right now in Israel center rules. Right or Left it hardly matters now. Current israeli strategy is encourage economic development in PA and wait till conditions right. I don't think Left see Abas as preferred party for negotiations too. Probably will wait till palestinian election. US have less influence on these maters then You think, usually israeli Left use US position to advance negotiations, but this is case if they want to advance them in the first place. We'll see.

So proponent of Two State solutions in my opinion need to work fast for workable Palestinian State offering, or risk the other solution gaining momentum from currently mostly on the acedemians Leftist. I talk about Bosnian model in my post, the Israeli acedemians seems talk about Belgium model. Either way the longer two state solution keep in the disputed talk, the more likely more people both in Israel and Palestinian look on this solution.

Like I say, either you take them (one state solution) or you pull out and give them proper workable state (two state solution). The choices is in Israel hand as occupier administration.

I would say implementing one state will fail just as 2 states in the past. First question is what will be status of Gaza.

 

[ngatimozart]

I understand that the Palestinian problem is central to any Middle East long term peace settlement. No amount of hand wringing and use of semantics by either side is going to change that. Both Israel and the Palestinians and their supporters are going to have to swallow some dead rats, whether they like it or not. Israel has to understand that the US will not always be there to cover its back and that it will tire of unending expensive encounters in the Middle East, especially if Israeli intranigence hampers peace initiatives. The Palestinians also have to understand that the Arab nations will tire of their intransigence and leave them for the wolves. They also have to understand that Iran's only interest in them is using them as cannon fodder in its ideological war against Israel and Saudi Arabia.

If either party continues with its intransigence it may find itself on its lonesome without its major backers, because said backers will tire of the continual drain upon their treasure, especially in a time of deep economic recession with them having more pressing needs for their limited treasure.

It's time to bring the discussion back on to topic and off pure politics.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

The Israeli political arena is seeing its biggest shift right now, in a very long time.
A prominent Likud party (Netanyahu's) member and contender for number 1 spot in the party, has split off and polls now predict the total power held by all the non-Likud parties allows them to create multiple variations of a government without Netanyahu, vastly increasing chances of Netanyahu being overthrown.

This has direct and unknown consequences on matters such as the INSS plan and the peace process with the Arab league, as well as relations with basically everyone.
Most important are relations with the Arab states and the INSS plan.

First, Netanyahu was a very strong leader (which is counter-productive if every choice he makes is wrong). The Arab states appreciated it and he had good diplomacy with them.
A leader that would be better for his citizens and better appreciated in the west, would almost definitely be less appreciated in the Arab world.
I predict that whomever is elected other than Netanyahu, will lead toward such a shift.

The INSS is a plan for a quick solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
I have no idea of how it will be affected, but it will be interesting to watch.

This may sound political but if this shift bears fruit, it will shape the central conflicts of the ME in a way we might notice soon, as elections and leadership changes are traditionally seen as points of revived diplomacy and efforts.

 

[ngatimozart]

No it's not political because it does have a geostrategic impact. That does indeed change the political situation within Israel and possibly the external relations. When do you think the current government fall due to failing to survive a motion of no confidence in the Knesset?

 

[Beholder]

The INSS is a plan for a quick solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
I have no idea of how it will be affected, but it will be interesting to watch.

It is one that have more chances to gather public support in Israel.
It is not "a quick solution" through. Main benefit it is modular, so we can take situation on the ground into account. Mainly plan avoid all hard issues, like Jerusalem. But if proposed measures(like differential construction) will fail to impress international community, arab community, or palestinians it will ultimately be non substantial. Unless we go to unilateral annexation of big settlements block, which we can't because of Oslo.
Also I don't know if we can implement long term differential construction in part where we stop construction in remote settlements, without them challenging this in Supreme Court.
Maybe it will succeed if whoever implement plan ultimately ready to throw Oslo away and annex big blocks of setlements+withdraw from remote ones and relinquish israeli claim to rest of territory in case bilateral agreement fails, otherwise You need pal-s and stuck in status quo exactly as right now. I don't hold my breath. IMO
---
For non israelies INSS plan have minor differences with what we are really doing currently.

https://www.inss.org.il/publication/strategic-framework-israeli-palestinian-arena/

No it's not political because it does have a geostrategic impact. That does indeed change the political situation within Israel and possibly the external relations. When do you think the current government fall due to failing to survive a motion of no confidence in the Knesset?

Unless new coalition is formed, march 16 will be new election.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Hamas and PIJ are warming up for a potential war, and Israel, with its still ongoing political crisis, is taking some measures to stand up to the threat.
And it seems the Israeli political crisis is not as effective in keeping top leadership from deciding major security matters as one might have thought.

The last 3 days were notable for the very high tensions in Gaza, with 45 rockets launched during that time.

Security cabinet authorizes broad military action if Gaza rocket fire continues

Netanyahu, Gantz given green light to decide how to proceed on behalf of government; step comes after some 45 projectiles fired at Israel from the Strip in 3 days

www.timesofisrael.com

However, we have not seen any meaningful troop movements to the Gaza area, so it's very hard to speculate what it's all about.

 

[ngatimozart]

Hamas and PIJ are warming up for a potential war, and Israel, with its still ongoing political crisis, is taking some measures to stand up to the threat.
And it seems the Israeli political crisis is not as effective in keeping top leadership from deciding major security matters as one might have thought.

The last 3 days were notable for the very high tensions in Gaza, with 45 rockets launched during that time.

Security cabinet authorizes broad military action if Gaza rocket fire continues

Netanyahu, Gantz given green light to decide how to proceed on behalf of government; step comes after some 45 projectiles fired at Israel from the Strip in 3 days

www.timesofisrael.com

However, we have not seen any meaningful troop movements to the Gaza area, so it's very hard to speculate what it's all about.

Aren't Palestinian Territory elections due soon as well? It could be Hamas and PIJ electioneering as well. I gather that not all of the voters are happy with them so there maybe some backlash in the ballot box. However the average Palestinian voter doesn't really have a lot of choice and they need something to help stir things in order to induce change.

I think that if the Israeli government did something totally unexpected and say the Jewish political parties worked with the Israeli Arab party in the Knesset by bringing them into a governing coalition may just be the start. It's not a quick fix, but maybe the start to a long term change in the Palestinian mindset. The trick is to convince the Palestinians that these Israeli Arab politicians will advance their cause within the government. If, and it's a big if, such an arrangement were to happen, that may encourage more moderate political movements within the Palestinian Nation. The end result would be less Hamas and less Iranian involvement. If the Abraham Accord nations could be bought onboard to help and other outside groups as well, the possibility that an eventual peace could be reached between the State of Israel and the Palestinian State.

The Jewish ultra conservatives and far right conservatives will have conniptions about this, however they have swallowed the dead rats of the Abraham Accords and something like this could be framed in a similar way. In the long term it would help guarantee the security of Israel especially if a mutually agreed defence and security pact between the two states could be reached. However Israel must understand that it would have to be a partnership of equals. The Palestinian State would have to understand that it will be required to strongly deal with terrorism and Iranian interference, as well as ensuring their border security and national defence.

An idea, that's all.