Dear Rhian,

«The central plank of the two-state solution is mutual recognition»

But that position cripples Israel: if Israel needs Palestinian "permission" to leave their cursed territories, then the "Palestinians" could blackmail Israel with all sorts of outrageous demands such as the "right of return", or perhaps even with demands of demilitarisation?

No, [post-Netanyahu] Israel should be free to leave at any time for its own sake and unconditionally, not requiring anybody else's permission. If the so-called "Palestinians" do not like it, then that's tough for them: if they fail to establish their state, then the ensuing chaos would be their own people's problem, not Israel's; and if they choose to continue the war then Israel will know very well how to deal with them!

Yes, a solution is indeed needed - a solution for Israel's internal corruption and decay due to its prolonged occupation.

Dear Yuyustu

I doubt Israel would ever agree to a right of return.

Demilitarised zones have featured in some past peace agreements and proposals (as I recall there is supposed to be one in Southern Lebanon, though Hezbollah seem to have missed the message on that one). Israel may insist on one along its border with Gaza when the current conflict ends.

I don’t quite understand your point about Israel being free to “leave”. In light of your comments here and elsewhere I interpret your views as: strong support for Israel’s right to exist and defend itself; strong opposition to the settler movement and oppression of Palestinians in the occupied territories; and rejection of a two-state solution as imposing constraints on Israel’s right to self-determination, and linking Israel’s security to the unlikely prospect that the Palestinians can sustain a peaceful, successful polity. If so. I’d agree on the first two points but hope you are wrong on the third.

Please accept my apologies if I have misunderstood or misrepresented your opinions

Dear Rhian,

You are correct that I strongly support Israel’s right to exist and defend itself; and strongly oppose to the settler movement and oppression of Palestinians in the occupied territories.

But even more than I oppose the settlers and their oppression, I oppose Israel's 1967 occupation itself.

I don't oppose a Palestinian state as such, I would even welcome it, but I think that 1) there are severe difficulties in the way of creating such a state; and 2) it will not solve much.

To be realistic, the West-Bank settlers are a formidable power and Israel doesn't have the strength to remove them by itself: it has no chance of surviving the civil war that would ensue if it tried.

Another difficulty is that the so-called "Palestinians" don't want a state of their own. What they really want (besides destroying Israel), is to re-unite with Syria, from which they were cut off in World-War-I. In any case, they will never accept a "state" where the armed and crazy Jewish settlers are still there.

Israel has been corroded and corrupted from within due to its 1967 "victory". It lost its erstwhile humility and turned arrogant and violent in all walks of life. The only remedy for Israel is to renounce this poisoned fruit, every bit of it to the last millimetre. That is also why I'm so afraid of some peace deal which would keep certain sections of the West Bank and Eastern Jerusalem in Israeli hands, with little further incentive to renounce them later.

What I therefore like to see, is for Israel to leave the West Bank and Gaza unilaterally without waiting for a peace agreement. The West-Bank settlers should be given the option to either come back home to Israel and receive an adequate financial compensation for their West-Bank properties, or to remain there and lose their Israeli citizenship.

Whatever happens in the West Bank once the IDF withdraws, with all that explosive mess of settlers and "Palestinians", Israel will just have to leave in the "too hard basket" and let the dice fall where it will.

If you look at the situation objectively, Israel has no legal or moral right to exist. If it hadn't been for the terrorist activities of the Irgun and their mates Lord Balfour wouldn't have given in to them. The religious reasons were all very specious. The way the Zionists took over the property of the indigent Palestinians was nothing short of criminal and it continues on the West Bank even until today. Now we also have the genocide of Netanyahu to contend with.
David

Dear Yuyutsu

Thank you for the explanation. I now have a better understanding of your position.

I still hold hopes for a two-state solution, in which case the question of borders would be a matter for negotiation. There have been suggestions that there could be land swaps that would allow some settlers to remain in their homes, but I expect most would have to (or want to) leave.

Failing a two-state solution, a unilateral withdrawal to the 1967 borders may be the next best option. It would address some of the legitimate grievances against Israel and make space for some sort of sustainable Palestinian polity to emerge. My only practical concern would be the Golan Heights. Strategically it would be a big risk for Israel to withdraw from there given how easy it is to use the area to attack northern Israel. Syria is hardly a friend to Israel; and the militias that operate freely in the area even less so.

I also still hold that it would be a mistake to recognise a Palestinian state if that state is unwilling to recognise Israel. It would trash 90+ years of conventions and law on how new states gain legitimacy, and the principles of the Oslo Accords and subsequent peace talks. It would also be an open invitation for future attacks on Israel.

Dear David,

«The way the Zionists took over the property of the indigent Palestinians»

It would be fair to discuss the legitimacy or otherwise of the additional lands that Israel later acquired - but here you specifically refer to the actions of the Zionists, meaning the founders of Israel up and until it became a state and the way they acquired their lands, later to become Israel's.

Whoever the natives were (whom you strangely call "Palestinians" even while nobody else did at the time, including themselves), they were not indigent but all too happy to receive good money from the Zionists for their useless swampy land that was infested with malaria-bearing mosquitoes.

At times the Zionists paid in full up to 4 times for the same land:
Once to its legal landlord.
Once to the poor tenant-farmers who claimed they get no benefit from the landlord's sale.
Once to the nomad Bedouin tribes who claimed it was their own seasonal grazing land.
Once to the corrupt Ottoman authorities who said they would not register any land in the name of Jews unless being paid directly.

At least until 1948, all Zionist land was purchased in full, then made inhabitable by hard work, draining the swamps and bringing water to the desert areas.

«If it hadn't been for the terrorist activities of the Irgun and their mates Lord Balfour wouldn't have given in to them.»

So when it comes to blue-blooded British aristocrats, they presumably hold every right to keep or give away as they please the lands their soldiers conquered... Australia included.

... and those who fight their forceful occupation... you call "terrorists" (not "freedom fighters", after all everyone is presumed to be free under British rule, including Indians and Africans). Tell me, what other terrorists called upon the people residing in the building they were about to blow up, asking them to leave in time in an effort to avoid human casualties?

You British - why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?