The sooner the wall goes the better. It causes much hardship, but it saves grief.

Corbyn pays much attention to the former but none to the latter.

How do you then call people who invade a country, use genocide/ethnic cleansing and mass expulsion and close the rest in a ghetto?

I refered to this when I answered Urs Max's posts.

I'm not asking what you were referring to.
I'm asking how do you call such a "solution" as I described?

Such scenarios did happen. for example during Islamic occupation of the middle east & asia or the European occupation of the Americas etc. The Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974 (granted - the Greeks weren't put in Ghettos but they were expelled). Actually ISIS did something similar as well. China and Tibet. Argentina and the Falklands/Malvinas, Indonesia in East Timor...

Perhaps you are familiar with Polish expulsion of Germans post ww2.

Luckily for all involved the situation in Israel not even close to the examples above. Yet, for some reason, Corbynites focus on Israel.

Why ?

My post-Ottoman geography is a bit shaky, but haven't the West Bank and Gaza got another border each?

What's stopping Jordan and Egypt from opening the gates, welcoming their Arab brothers and sisters, maybe granting them residence rights, citizenship, and so on?

As Pashosh says, all this focus on Israel as if it's the sole oppressor of the region is a bit, uh... well, we don't like to say it out loud, do we, chaps?

This is actually part of the Trump/Kushner Middle-East peace plan.


Currently, the Palestinians and the Palestinian refugees in the neighboring countries are used as leverage to yield concessions from Israel in a to-be-worked-on peace-contract (that would also give the current administration in Palestine more credibility).


If Jordan, Syria et.al. would give citizenship to these "refugees", Israel would have a lot less problems because then they couldn't claim land in Israel anymore.
Except that under such a plan, Israel would also need to grant citizenship to all Palestinians.
It would also end all dreams of a sovereign state for the Palestinians - and that's currently a frog too ugly to kiss, for both sides.



If execution was better (a recurring theme in the Trump administration), it's not such a bad plan because it's based in reality, not in fantasy land like most previous plans.


The refugees in Jordan, Egypt etc. are 2nd-class citizens in these countries, too - at best.

Why don't you suggest the Jews leave for elsewhere instead? Would that be antisemitic? What does that make your post then?

I don't know. What does it make my post? I'm all ears.

Let's break down that wall and give Palestinians equal rights. They're not going to move anywhere else just to accomplish some ideal of an ethnically purified state. Israel is and it will be a multicultural and multi religious state. I remember there was a guy who dreamt of a blue-eyed, blonde, perfectly white new people and it didn't end too well for him, did it?
If you grow up behind a wall as if you were a wild animal, you can't feel any loyalty or respect for that country. This is my opinion. Let's not repeat the mistakes of the past.

Maybe because Isreael wants to establish good relations and lobbying in the western countries, and they don't want to be corrupted by a South-Africa like human-rights pariah?

(Regarding Germans in '45, they actually fled the Red Army en masse. And Poland did not play any role in the Potsdam conference; instead Poland was the played piece. You may blame US and UK if you want that they made that deal with the Soviets).

I don't know, but apparently it's fine to say so. So let me answer your proposal by suggesting that the Jews should move abroad and leave Palestine to the Palestineans.

Perhaps the Greeks should leave Cyprus to the Turks too?

This is a jolly game!

The thing is: Palestine is not viable on its own.
If it's not a sure thing, it's very likely.

So, the question is: who do you want to pour money into it?
Iran? Syria? Turkey maybe?
EU taxmoney?

IMO, it wouldn't be the worst thing if Israel actually had to govern it, build up the utilities etc.pp.

Of course, as my co-worker likes to say, in a perfect world, we could drink from the toilet bowl.

The reality is that there is no trust left between the two groups of people and the status quo will likely continue for the foreseeable future.

What's the topic again?

I agree.
No, the question is when Israel will give back the annexed land and sit down at the negotiation table. Without that there's no economic prosperity, without which the Palestineans will have nothing to lose so they will keep fighting.
If that was a realistic assumption it would happen already.
I think the fundamental reason is that Israel has nothing to gain by negotiating, certainly not as long as the US back them unconditionally. Quite the contrary, as fair negotiations would also mean losing at least some of the water sources and arable land. Yes, it doesn't look like anything's going to change.

The Jews ARE Palestinians.

Tom

Perhaps the Russian mafia should leave Limassol to the Cypriots, at least that's what I've heard here in Paphos and last week in Larnaca.

What's with this excess of ethnocentrism? A place belongs to its inhabitants.

Context.