Illuminatus on 18/11/2012 at 22:54

---

I'm sure you're aware of the weekly protests at the separation wall all over the West Bank that have been going on for years, and the familiar descent into the ritual of tear gas and rubber bullets. Tahrir Square is an interesting comparison, but the real structural parallel here is with other ex-British/French mandates like Alawite Syria or Maronite Lebanon: minoritarian govts which never established legitimate authority over the rest of the population and preferred to deal militarily (or are still doing so) with their disenfranchised groups. All these countries go through a long, usually bloody process before both sides are exhausted enough to sit down and enact meaningful power-sharing reforms. Israel is too strong and the Palestinians are far too weak and divided for that point to be anywhere within sight. That's the real hardball realism at play here.

So on the ground, it's already becoming a one-state solution, and the Israeli government is under no meaningful pressure to give up what it currently controls (despite the strategic long-term demographic or democratic disaster that this is creating). In terms of maintaining this position of power (and expanding the West Bank occupation), it's much more convenient for Israel to be dealing with Hamas' old-school hard-line resistance instead of having a tangible peace partner like a strong, moderate Fatah. That's why symbolic, non-violent gestures like Fatah's push for UN recognition are so quickly shot down (the US has promised to veto even a request for just non-member observer status, like the Vatican's).

This is also why the divided Palestinian house is Netanyahu's preferred status quo (his age-old refrain of "how can you make peace with a divided government?"). Of course, he'll be just as outspoken against Fatah-Hamas reconciliation 10 mins later ("how can you unify with the crazies in Gaza?"). Mahmoud Abbas and the moderates have been sidelined in this way for ages, and the continued settlement construction in the West Bank (or, as Netanyahu revealingly calls it, "Judea and Samaria", aka Greater Israel) has already pretty much left the Palestinians without any chance of a territorially coherent future state. It's a hell of a mess, but a largely understandable one if the interests at play are analyzed a bit closer.

Beleg Cúthalion on 20/11/2012 at 14:12

---

What faetal said. Plus...Fixed.

There is hardly a point in leaving out the history of modern Israel and Palestine since this is what moves people's minds there and this is where a certain discourse has become accepted reality in large parts of the Western world. As pragmatically-acceptable as a two-state solution and other stuff might seem, it does not even remotely touch the real problem of one state errected on different people's territory and often (re)acting violently against it. And of course how would a Palestinian state look if it consisted of (http://humanprovince.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/palestina-small.jpg?w=350) Palestinian territories? I mean, they're still building a huge concrete wall around a group of stateless and self-organized people.

I'm curious about the peace/protest movements within Israel, especially the female officers. Of course it would be stupid to ignore the diversity within this state, too.

Beleg Cúthalion on 20/11/2012 at 18:24

---

If there is one thing that this timeline should tell you, it's that Arabs (the people mostly, not kings pushed by the British government) never really liked the Jews in Palestine and even more fought against colonisation plans early on. You also should be aware that pinpointing the erection of a state is more than unsatisfactory, but even then: the territory "Eretz Israel" claimed in 1948 was by no means limited to Jewish settlements and how could that even be in a land with mixed population...?! You cannot make a single point by considering definitions of official states when the whole region was a melting pot subject to foreign control for centuries.

No matter how unjust one considers the hatred and hostility in that time, it remains fact that you have a foundation of a state by one party in a mixed territory which is anything but undisputed (despite claims to be open for all people) and which, however, gets support from Western states unlike its enemies. Over time, it conquers even more territory in order to fight off its hostile environment and gain space for its growing number of inhabitants.

About the shed, well, of course the wall also blocks weapon supplies. But aside from that it paralyzes – together with the rest of isloation strategies – almost all civillian life. Can you imagine being stuck several hours a day in military checkpoints in order to get to work? Shed analogy remains valid, stone throwing is also prevented. :p

june gloom on 20/11/2012 at 19:15

---

Point of contention, it hasn't conquered anything -- it expanded its borders after repelling attacks by several of its neighbors.

june gloom on 21/11/2012 at 05:51

---

oh what the fuck are you even doing