[wat0n]

Well, I cannot really wholly credit you for that since Israel has already offered territorial exchanges to the PA in the past, though Netanyahu didn't do so, Olmert and Barak did so you get half the credit.

That said, I think I stated quite clearly why Netanyahu isn't doing so: He is averse to take risks and prefers to keep the status quo (especially since this is a status quo in which he's the PM). I think he's less ideological than he used to, replacing that with a more cynical, self-interested position instead.

And well, it's not like the PA can deliver what Israel wants (an effective end to hostilities) so negotiations cannot really solve this issue as long as the PA cannot replace Hamas in Gaza.

[pugsville]

prefers to keep the status quo

Netanyahu continues the expansion of the Settlements in the West Bank. It is not keeping the status quo.
But continuing unilateral action to destroy any chance of a real peace settlement.

[wat0n]

He's been building less than other PMs in practice (in terms of housing starts), though I'll grant you that I'm not sure if this is concentrated in the already existing settlement blocs.

In any event, the issue of settlements is greatly overstated. If there's a peace deal, I don't see how a combination of territorial swaps, compensated repatriation and just letting some setters taste Palestinian rule cannot work. Of course, they are still a problem that has to be dealt with, not only because they have to be taken into account in negotiations themselves but also because their presence leads to friction between both populations and a more unstable situation as a result, but their actual importance is greatly overstated compared to the refugee issue and the problem of how to deal with Palestinian armed groups who don't recognize any treaty with Israel while ending Israeli military control over whatever territories end up being part of a Palestinian state - the latter in particular seems particularly hard to solve as it implies involving third parties and possibly military operations even after a treaty is signed.

[Heinie]

... In any event, the issue of settlements is greatly overstated. ...

You are in denial if you imagine that the Jewish settlements are not a major breach of international law and serve only to claim vast areas of land and infrastructure as part of Israel both now and for time immemorial.

[wat0n]

You are in denial if you imagine that the Jewish settlements are not a major breach of international law

I don't think I said they aren't. I also do not think this matters as far as conflict solving goes.

and serve only to claim vast areas of land and infrastructure as part of Israel both now and for time immemorial.

And yet both sides seem to agree that most will have to be swapped, based on the negotiations between Abbas and Olmert in the Annapolis talks in 2007-2008 and whose proposals were leaked in 2011. Perhaps this is because they don't serve to claim "vast areas of lands" as the biggest settlement blocs represent around 6% of the West Bank and so territorial swaps, compensated repatriation and simply letting the rest live under Palestinian rule is a viable option to consider for both.

The gaps on the settlement issue between Israel and the PLO seem to be much smaller than those on security arrangements and the right to return, for example. Maybe, and just maybe, this suggests those two are much harder to deal with than settlements in the context of peace talks you know.

If anything, I think settlements are more problematic right now simply because the contact between Israelis and Palestinians makes it easier for both to attack each other and so help to destabilize the situation.

[Heinie]

And yet both sides seem to agree that most will have to be swapped, based on the negotiations between Abbas and Olmert in the Annapolis talks in 2007-2008 ...

Any negotiations with the Israelis have been proved to be not worth the paper they are written on. So-called negotiations are used as a ruse by the Israelis to continue the status quo of occupation.

[wat0n]

You should tell this to the Egyptians and Jordanians. I don't see why couldn't something similar happen with regards to the Palestinians, particularly contrasting with the case of Egypt: Israel, after all, also settled the Sinai, and this didn't really make peace between both States (in terms of a treaty and ending hostilities) impossible.

[Heinie]

You should tell this to the Egyptians and Jordanians. I don't see why couldn't something similar happen with regards to the Palestinians, particularly contrasting with the case of Egypt: Israel, after all, also settled the Sinai, and this didn't really make peace between both States (in terms of a treaty and ending hostilities) impossible.

Unlike the occupied Palestinians, the Jordanians and Egyptians have armies. The Israelis understand only one language.

[wat0n]

Unlike the occupied Palestinians, the Jordanians and Egyptians have armies. The Israelis understand only one language.

Oh, so it actually isn't about settlements now. Good, the goal posts have changed

Anyway, the Palestinians have no regular army but they do have quite a few militias, enough to be quite troublesome for the Israelis (and actually for the Jordanians and Lebanese too at some point). So they aren't really as weak as you make them look, they are strong enough to be troublesome for Israel and, at times, their Arab neighbors as well even if both Israel and the armies of both Egypt and Jordan can defeat them on the battlefield eventually.

Maybe the actual difference between both Egypt and Jordan and the Palestinians is that Egypt and Jordan actually had and still have unified governments which were (and still are) willing and able to crush any armed opposition to the peace treaties, and enforce them. The Palestinians do not really have this, the PA may be willing but is not really able to enforce a treaty. The same applies to Lebanon to an extent, too, considering what happened after Israel ended its occupation there in 2000.

Hence, as I suggested, security arrangements are a much, much bigger issue than settlements. After all, if the PA cannot enforce the Treaty on its own then some third part will have to instead. And that is by itself quite complicated given what it implies - the disarming and demobilising of the several armed groups which operate among the Palestinian population.

[skinster]

Oh! Please. Give it a rest. Credit us with enough intelligence to know that Netanyahu and the Israelis have no intention of ever leaving Occupied Palestine unless impelled to do so by force of arms.

Any negotiations with the Israelis have been proved to be not worth the paper they are written on. So-called negotiations are used as a ruse by the Israelis to continue the status quo of occupation.

Indeed. waton should cut his crap, nobody is falling for it (besides him).

[danholo]

So the drums of war are rolling. Thankfully Israel is armed to the teeth in the face of such blood lust. Jews will only leave their homeland if they are slaughtered and expelled - or for genuine promises for peace. Honestly, the only crap is the pro-Palestinian position which would only invite more instability, chaos and intolerance to the region in the form of some failed Palestinian state that probably wouldn't last for a few weeks, if ever. Strategically it seems that the occupation is the only way to maintain any form of quiet and stability in Israel at the moment, despite all the calamities it has and will wreak.

[skinster]

What is this drums of war talk about?

Palestinians aren't asking for Jews to leave, they're asking you to stop occupying them. And so are all the organizations who endorse the boycott of Israel. Consider that instead of playing victim; something nobody believes about Israel anymore.

[danholo]

What is this drums of war talk about?

Israelis have no intention of ever leaving Occupied Palestine unless impelled to do so by force of arms.

Palestinians aren't asking for Jews to leave, they're asking you to stop occupying them.

Really? Please enlighten me. I might change my position if presented with convincing evidence.

And so are all the organizations who endorse the boycott of Israel. Consider that instead of playing victim; something nobody believes about Israel anymore.

Who is this nobody? Every single person on Earth or the small circles you are influenced by? I have to say that I've acquainted myself with many of these groups that oppose Israel and have adopted this odd idealistic resistance culture where the Palestine issue is a deeply important topic and issue of contention. I find it a bit nihilistic, deluded and naive - but that's just my opinion of course.

On the other hand, I'd say that most rational (i.e., Western governments) are severely critical of Israel's policies on the settlements but generally are quite even handed on the conflict so that they recognize that Israel has legitimate security concerns but also strongly support a two-state solution. The severely irrational anti-Israel and anti-Semitic positions posited by Israel's neighbors are no secret which might give some credence to Israel's positions - despite this being largely ignored by Israel's detractors. But hey, I could be wrong, so if you have any current information that contradicts my position, I'd be happy to hear it. I mean, all I just presented is just my opinion so maybe you have some hard evidence to support your assertions?

[skinster]

Israelis have no intention of ever leaving Occupied Palestine unless impelled to do so by force of arms.

Ha, you read the above as "drums to war"?

Okay, well good. I thought you were talking about new Israeli attacks on Gaza.

Really? Please enlighten me. I might change my position if presented with convincing evidence.

Read what the BDS campaign states and you can enlighten yourself.

As to the rest of your rant, which includes a bunch of hasbara - the occupation was never about security / Israel has stated there will be no Palestinian state / stuff about antisemitism - you can enlighten yourself simply by waking up from your disease that's called Zionism.

[wat0n]

Indeed. waton should cut his crap, nobody is falling for it (besides him).

By "nobody" you mean who exactly? Heinie and yourself? Other anti-Israel posters?

Maybe and just maybe you could try to present an argument (instead of a poor attempt of an ad-populum fallacy) and see how it goes. But in this case it seems that Heinie ended up changing the goalposts, which I obviously called because - well, why the hell not?

[skinster]

Oh you know, all those people and organizations that endorse the boycott, divestment and sanctioning of Israel because of its illegal and brutal military occupation of Palestinians and their international-recognized territory, including tons of Jews and a bunch of Jewish groups, Israeli human rights groups, etc. Just them. Would you like a list?

[wat0n]

More ad-populum, I see.

In any event, all those organizations haven't succeeded at harming Israel where they try to: Economically, culturally or its academia. Maybe they aren't as relevant as they, in their self-righteous hypocrisy, they think they are.

And for what it's worth, most of those organizations provide little value to society so I have even less reasons to care about their policitical positions.

[skinster]

More BDS news:

The tide is turning against Zionist extremism

These changing perceptions are the result of the rise of alternative forms of media, which have broken through the mainstream media’s imbalanced and inaccurate portrayal of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

http://mycatbirdseat.com/2015/10/93555t ... extremism/

[danholo]

Read what the BDS campaign states and you can enlighten yourself.

This wasn't very enlightening - I asked you to convince me; You said that the Palestinians want something and you gave me a mission statement of an organisation? Is the BDS an official mouthpiece of the Palestinian people? How are they at all related?

As to the rest of your rant, which includes a bunch of hasbara - the occupation was never about security / Israel has stated there will be no Palestinian state / stuff about antisemitism - you can enlighten yourself simply by waking up from your disease that's called Zionism.

I ask you honestly to convince me and you offer me an ad hominem attack about my diseased psyche and a rant of your own. Essentially your point is that I am incapable of salvation and your preaching is futile so the intelligent approach to insult me?

More ad-populum, I see.

Ad populum, ad hominem, ad victoriam.

[skinster]

This wasn't very enlightening - I asked you to convince me; You said that the Palestinians want something and you gave me a mission statement of an organisation? Is the BDS an official mouthpiece of the Palestinian people? How are they at all related?

I don't care if it doesn't convince you. It's happening. The Palestinians want an end to their occupation that is illegal under international law. Israel ignores the law and continues its decades-long brutal occupation. So Palestinian civil society endorsed a boycott against Israel about a decade ago and now lots of organizations worldwide are supporting Palestinians in this, like what the OP is about.

If you took the time to read the last link I shared with you, you wouldn't be asking me these questions. I recommend actually reading it before playing interrogator on me.

More BDS news:

Portuguese retailer Worten drops SodaStream