@tazacebedo253 I.think your being a bit hard on Israelis. Just because Netanyahu showed the UN a map where the whole region was called Israel, and just because he passed a Nation state law that said it was the right of only Jews to expand settlements, does not mean all Israelis believe they own the whole lot...Just the majority.
@@Botie2 funny you should say that. its the hamas and a big majority of palestinians who want to keep the land to themselves. they rejected the u. n. partition, did they not?
@tazacebedo253 And yet, the expansion on the ground has been exclusively Israeli expansion and Palestinian dispossession. In other words "Believe what they say, not what they do"?
Although his intentions seem good, he seems ignorant about several things. For starters, Israelis and Palestinians both don't share statelessness. Palestinians do. Israelis don't.
I'm very clearly referring to shared historical experiences, i.e., for most of Jewish history Jews did not have a state -- and paid a huge cost for this. But thanks for the good-faith listen.
Depends what kind of Jew your talking about because Israel is a not a Jewish state it is a Zionist state. Just like IS is an Islamist state but not a Muslim one like indonesia.
After the fighting immediately after the creation of Israel a similar number of people were made stateless with around 700,000 each of Jews and Palestinians. The reason there are no Jewish refugees now is because a Jewish state survived and Jews were able to be free from persecution for the first time in millenia and were welcomed. Palestinian refugees were accepted as a political bargaining tool in many cases as with Jordan. Jews have nowhere else to go where they are the majority and safeguarded beyond all others but Palestinians as Muslims do with the whole of the Arab world. Second and third generation Palestinian 'refugees' cannot directly be considered refugees and would therefore be able to fully integrate within Jordanian or Lebanese society relatively well.
People who debate competitively can spot a logical fallacy or disingenuous argument - but they can’t spot those things for the voters. This guy in this video is speaking ethically. Can he respond effectively to someone who succeeds by being unethical? Also, we know this guy is a talented speaker when his audience is a prestigious university, or the people who’d watch a debate club video online. But could he relate to enough Average Joes to win an election? Sadly people like this don’t often win elections. It’s a shame.
He is the only one, to his credit, from the Opposition who looks at the 2-state solution more or less objectively. I'm certain that his teammates on the Opposition do not agree at all with his position. The key failure in his argument is two-fold: 1. That settlements removal is something a different Israeli Administration with enough political will can make happen, and clear this as an obstacle to a viable 2-state solution. No such political party or movement exist, and every Israeli Govt (Left or Right) has ever scaled-back Settlement expansion in the last 40-50yrs. This is purely aspirational, as is most of his speech. 2. Supporting Fatah and sidelining Hamas, primarily because Hamas is framed as a terrorist organization, just splits Palestinian unity, a divide and conquer/control strategy that prompted Hamas' creation in the first place by Israel. Let's not forget that Fatah 40 yrs ago as the PLO was also labeled a terrorist organization, but one also need to remember that any organization fighting occupation are liberation or freedom fighters.
1. Olmert was absolutely ready to claw back a number of settlements. However, he specifically was unwilling to claw back Ariel (which Sussman correctly points out was erected deliberately to divide Nablus from Ramallah). Ariel was perhaps THE major hangup between Olmert and Abbas. It was a total impasse, one that it's difficult to imagine any Israeli government being willing to move past. And that's ignoring Ma'ale Adumim, perhaps a greater affront to Palestinian contiguity as it lays claim to East Jerusalem. If they won't claw back Ariel, they sure as hell won't claw back Ma'ale Adumim. 2. Hamas was not created by Israel nor was their creation prompted by Israeli reconciliation or picking winners. Israeli refusal to implement Oslo or produce a viable peace deal, as well as quiet support for Hamas through Qatar, helped their rise, but it would be wrong to say Israel "created" them. (Also, Fatah's naked corruption didn't help). You are right though that handselecting a peace partner and imposing them by force is doomed to fail, any peace that came from such an obvious subversion of Palestinian will would be completely illegitimate in the eyes of every Palestinian (which would spark more subversion and terror, which would strengthen the Israeli right who would proclaim they have no legitimate peace partner, and round and round we go...) This does not necessarily spell doom -- well, the settlements kind of do, but imagine a miracle occurs and they actually aren't a problem. The US comes in and strongarms the Fatah puppet government into power in Gaza. Then what? If the answer is "more of the same," the region's headed for "more of the same, or worse." But if we force through a good peace deal (unlikely to come from the Biden government, unimaginable from any rabidly pro-Israeli Trump government), roughly along the lines of the Olmert-Abbas plan, and the region starts to see growth, economic development, life improving under peacetime conditions... it _might_ work. Of course, Fatah would have to run a strict police state to khold their fragile legitimacy together, and Israel would continue to run heinous "preemptive" CT operations, but so long as more of Palestine starts looking like Ramallah, then such an ugly little neocolonial scheme could hold together an enduring peace and an easing of tensions over time. I don't know about you, but I find the scheme I've just typed up hideous. Again, I think it _could_ work, but it's ugly, no? But then, all the options here are looking ugly to me. The Israeli right will not give up. The question I think we have to ask ourselves is "is this the type of world we want to live in?" And if the answer is "no," we need to figure out what type of world we _do_ want to live in, and how to bring it to fruition.
@@sammosaurusrex as thoughtful a comment as I've seen on YT on this topic. Thanks. Needless to say, this is a hugely complex and intractable problem. There're many layers and facets that need to come together. Here's my wishful thinking list (I will say that I wish well for Palestinians AND Israelis in Palestine. But I'm sure the Zionists will furiously disagree): 1. The US needs to be 'neutralized' from any role. There's no prospect of a Dem or Rep in the WH and having a majority in Congress that is going to support a viable 2-state solution. It's ALL lip-service and strawman, followed by gaslighting. Even a Cornel West presidency won't make any difference. That is about as remote as it gets. 2. The International Community 'forces' the Israeli Govt to accept a 2-state based on pre-1967 borders. I know Palestinians disagree 1967 borders is just and fair, but that's a starting point. This necessarily entails dismantling of ALL settlements in the West Bank. Cue Zionists cries of "Exodus!!!", but settlements are a violation of International Law, so who cares. 3. The International Community will 'force' a unity Palestinian Government comprising representative from the West Bank and Gaza. Could be through proportional elections. Build consensus on the parameters of a viable Palestinian state. 4. Both sides, Israel and Palestine cannot be held hostage by extremists. So bombings by Palestinian terrorists (bus-stops, etc) or IDF violence/Settler provocations, must be handled as police matters and perpetrators brought to justice. The U.N. may have to play a role as peace-keepers/police here. And yes, I recognize the U.N.'s record in these roles are patchy at best. 5. Jerusalem will be an International City. With Jews, Christians, Muslim quarters protected under International Law. There'll be no shortage of provocations to stir trouble, so those funding abetting trouble-makers will also be culpable & pay a hefty price. 6. West Bank and Gaza need a land-bridge connection, under U.N. auspices. Israel territory remains contiguous, but a beidge connecting the Palestinian territories will provide sea access for Palestine. Any attack on this bridge will trigger Israeli port facilities for Palestinian use/part-ownership. 7. Infrastructure, both Israeli and Palestine will have joint access/ownership to infrastructure funding in energy, water, agrifoods, climate-change, education. This makes developmental success mutually incentivized for both sides. 8. De-militarization. IDF has no juridiction, land/air/sea over sovereign Palestinian territory. Palestine can have a self-defence force, but no long-range weapons. No stationing of heavy weapons closer than 12km from the borders. These 8 points are certainly incomplete, and there're many questions/problems with each. I'm no expert, and these should not be seen as 'answers or solutions'. But I figure it's better to have discussions on "how-to", rather than "no way".
(a) 9:35 land swaps - swap with what exactly - parts of Israel? (b) In the 6 years since this debate Hamas is getting stronger - helped by the collapse of neighbouring Syria and weapons supplied by Iran (c) Israelis politics is drifting ever right-wing and has since the time of the assassination of Yitzak Rabin in 1994 - most Israelis prefer low level war than a unpalatable peace accord which would only last a few years anyway (d) the idea that the 700,000 settlers can be moved is a complete logistical non-starter - evacuating settlers from Gaza in 2000 was problematic enough whose population was a fraction of the size
a) Yes, land swaps with Israel. This has been a core of all peace plans going back to Camp David. Barak only offered 12% annexation with no compensation, the Americans put forward a proposal for around 9% annexation with 2% compensation by land swaps. Olmert's plan was for about 6% annexation with 5% compensation by landswaps, Abbas' counter proposal was around 2% annexation with 2% compensation. The land swaps are not an obstacle to peace, both peace parties agreed to them (although peace is very distant now). b) This conflict will determine the status of Hamas. Politically they will almost undoubtedly be strengthened for their resistance to the occupation, though militarily they may be temporarily hobbled. Rendering Hamas impotent and propping up a puppet government who brings development to the region could work in theory, if Fatah were offered a good enough peace deal (and a decent deal sure as heck ain't coming from the Israeli government, and is unlikely to come from the Biden government too). Such an option would be immoral anyways, but it could conceivably work. c) Yep. It's pretty common to ascribe this to the cycle of violence, and there's definitely some truth to that. Hamas commits a crime which strengthens the right, the right responds outrageously which strengthens Hamas, and back and forth and round and round we go... But I've seen Chomsky ascribe it to "the logic of occupation" invading the minds of Israelis, and I think that's maybe a more true framing. Imagine what it must feel like to witness an unjustifiable regime holding down Palestinians with violence day in and day out. Your mind has to do two things to alleviate the cognitive dissonance of existing at the top of this unjust hierarchy: First, it has to justify the violence; this violence is ugly, but it keeps me safe. Second, it has to explain why the violence was necessary in the first place; "they hate us because we are Jewish," that sort of thing. Thus, even the Kibbutzniks are turned away from peace by the difficult reality of existing in such a society, the fear of what will happen when the Israeli boot is taken off the throat of the Palestinian people supersedes their (real) desire for peace and justice. I'm speaking from psychological experience, but not as an Israeli; this psychology is identical to the White Liberal mentality towards Black people in my home country, the United States. d) Yep. (Although it was actually around 9,000 settlers who were evacuated from Gaza, no individual settlement has a population much greater than 2,000). It's basically hopeless. It's worth noting that even Abbas' plan kept roughly 60% of settlers in place; everyone agrees that Beitar Illit and Modi'in Illit are here to stay. But it is difficult to imagine any Israeli government evacuating Ariel or Ma'ale Adumim. Maybe if imposed by an outside force, but that will never happen either. Overall, I'm feeling pretty hopeless today. I think my brain has finally gone numb from so much crying, and now I just don't feel it anymore. Here's to hoping the news is better in the decades to come, because God knows these next couple years are going to be hell.
Some points are very valid and arguments are pretty convincing but I still do not think that two-state solution is the only outcome possible. IT IS NOT. A two-state solution would lead to Israel and Palestine becoming like India and Pakistan. They would become hostile to each other and mutual respect for one another is would be like expecting Donald Trump to actually make sense. As far as Hamas is concerned, if there are two-states wouldn't Hamas use the past treatment of the Palestinians as a propaganda and incentive to end more lives? Palestinians are suppressed at the moment and therefore have not been able seek aid. What is the guarantee that they would not seek revenge? What if something like the Indo-Pak war started? A one-state solution is possible. A federal government can be established in Israel. Something like the Belgian model should be formed and that would prevent Israelis and Palestinians from killing each other because then they would be mutually dependent on each other for security. T'was mentioned that Hamas has become dormant. Israel is not exactly moving towards two-state solution the only thing it is doing is settling Jews in the West Bank which is basically making it more difficult for a two-state solution. So don't u think Hamas becoming dormant may have to do more with Jews being integrated into the West Bank rather than a two-state solution. Even if you look at history, during the Ottoman Empire, Israelis and Palestinians were not exactly stabbing each other or living in two different states. It is a proof that one-state is possible. so just NO
***** If Palestinians would accept that it might work whereas one state solution simply cant work. You can have one state between two friendly nation and even that is hardly to maintain see UK or I am from Czech Republic former Czechoslovakia. We love Slovak people and they love us but Slovak people rather wanted a split because of some really stupid problems.
***** I referred to Belgium....the french and the dutch were not on good terms but when they formed a nation keeping each other's wants in mind they made a nation with a stable economy whereas take india and pakistan they hated each other got separated and all it led to was dispute over resources, unstable economies, wars and hostility towards each other. Whether they like it or not fact is if they live as one state they will cooperate to survive.....if they separate into two states they will go to war..... again....
Hostility is not against international law. U cant determine how people will feel or react. What we must accept is international law. Many states are hostile towards each other. But they exist. Leave 'if' statements out and apply international law for once in more than 60 years of conflict. People are suppressed everywhere even in Israel. However, these are not justifications for not forming a state.
One state solution has all the problems you just outlined, except within Isreal's borders, and with a population that will eventually out number of Isrealis.
The level of hope Sam gave was so reassuring. I was one of those people who thought it was impossible, but Im going to think now that peace is possible.
well prepared .............. this debate is best i ever seen on two state solution ..............hand off to this guy and oxford to taking this initiative to bring before the views of different people on such issue effecting the contemporary chaos .......
That is so much Crap that Israel is an Apartheid State. Arabs have more might in In Israel than they have in almost all Arab Countries.. What about all the Jews who got thrown out of Arab Countries. What about the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who worked with Hitler to Stop Jews from coming into Israel to escape Annhilation from the Nazis.
This boy is a classic example of a Romantic, at least in appearance, Manal Cheema get it right. There will be no two state solution for the better or worse it does not matter. Two state solution is a mouth peace for such idiots and romantics.
The moment i became suspicious is when the speaker declared Gideon Levi as a brave person and his personal hero. In reality Gideon Levis opinions are so extreme and frowned upon that he is considered to be a radical even by the israeli political left.
Even if with two state solution there is no long lasting peace for both of them till The prince of peace who is Jesus Christ comes it will happen soon.He give the land to the Jewish people as the eternal possession as he promised to the father Abraham and his descendants. Jer.27:5(Bible)
The Jews have lost Gods favour. They rejected the promised Messiah as a nation and their system was ended in 70 CE. Acts 15:14 clearly shows a good relationship with God is no more determined by ethnicity.
I object to calling the two groups "Israelis and Palestinians". Irsraelis and (some) Arabs are both Palestinians. But, it is incorrect to refer to them as these two groups. It suggests that the Arabs are the rightful rulers of the land. The proper term is "Israelis and Arabs" or "Israelis and Political Islamists", which better describes the ruling ideologies of the governments which are in competition to rule the land. The PA and the Israeli governments. It is absolutely clear that the Israeli government is a legitimate freedom loving government, while the PA is not and thus it cannot rule.
In Palestine you will find ethnic Palestinians who are Christian but i do agree to a degree what u mean by political Islam which i don't see as a problem just like i don't see a problem with Israel being a Jewish state. But i do object u calling Israel just Israel because they categorically call themselves a Jewish state.
Byron Maxad Political Islam is in no way comparable to the degree of religion that plays a role in the government of Israel. Political Islam is totalitarian and oppressive.
Byron Maxad I agree it has some special exceptions to being a secular state, but it is not a theocracy like Political Islam, like the Arabs, Iranians have.
lol Special exceptions being what?? an apartheid state? having second class citizens who have partial rights?? Listen im not a big fan of Hamas but what i can say is there is only one side that professes to be freedom loving and democratic and it ain't Hamas. This fallacy of equivocation that you use when referring to "Political Islam" i find very strange would u call Indonesia state which is run using Political Islam? For example i'm not gonna equivocate Zionist Jews with other Jews when the former slaughters 2000 Palestinians. Your form of argumentation might sway your fellow Europeans and Americans who grew up watching the history channel but i grew up with pernicious wars of Congo which took 11 million lives so excuse me if i see thru your cause as meagre and indefensible.
"Two men arguing over a pizza while one of them keeps eating slices"
the other guy thinks he owns the whole pizza .
@tazacebedo253 I.think your being a bit hard on Israelis. Just because Netanyahu showed the UN a map where the whole region was called Israel, and just because he passed a Nation state law that said it was the right of only Jews to expand settlements, does not mean all Israelis believe they own the whole lot...Just the majority.
@@Botie2 funny you should say that. its the hamas and a big majority of palestinians who want to keep the land to themselves. they rejected the u. n. partition, did they not?
@tazacebedo253 And yet, the expansion on the ground has been exclusively Israeli expansion and Palestinian dispossession. In other words "Believe what they say, not what they do"?
i genuinely loved his speech from the content to the speaking style to the humour..such an inspiration
Although his intentions seem good, he seems ignorant about several things. For starters, Israelis and Palestinians both don't share statelessness. Palestinians do. Israelis don't.
Israelis don't, that's correct. But Jews do.
I'm very clearly referring to shared historical experiences, i.e., for most of Jewish history Jews did not have a state -- and paid a huge cost for this. But thanks for the good-faith listen.
Depends what kind of Jew your talking about because Israel is a not a Jewish state it is a Zionist state. Just like IS is an Islamist state but not a Muslim one like indonesia.
OMG, it's you, the speaker! :) Hi! and I won't argue further. Sam Sussman
After the fighting immediately after the creation of Israel a similar number of people were made stateless with around 700,000 each of Jews and Palestinians. The reason there are no Jewish refugees now is because a Jewish state survived and Jews were able to be free from persecution for the first time in millenia and were welcomed. Palestinian refugees were accepted as a political bargaining tool in many cases as with Jordan. Jews have nowhere else to go where they are the majority and safeguarded beyond all others but Palestinians as Muslims do with the whole of the Arab world. Second and third generation Palestinian 'refugees' cannot directly be considered refugees and would therefore be able to fully integrate within Jordanian or Lebanese society relatively well.
This guy has politician written all over him.
100%
People who debate competitively can spot a logical fallacy or disingenuous argument - but they can’t spot those things for the voters. This guy in this video is speaking ethically. Can he respond effectively to someone who succeeds by being unethical?
Also, we know this guy is a talented speaker when his audience is a prestigious university, or the people who’d watch a debate club video online. But could he relate to enough Average Joes to win an election?
Sadly people like this don’t often win elections. It’s a shame.
You forgot about ethnic cleansing, genocide, pogram and many more
He is the only one, to his credit, from the Opposition who looks at the 2-state solution more or less objectively. I'm certain that his teammates on the Opposition do not agree at all with his position. The key failure in his argument is two-fold:
1. That settlements removal is something a different Israeli Administration with enough political will can make happen, and clear this as an obstacle to a viable 2-state solution. No such political party or movement exist, and every Israeli Govt (Left or Right) has ever scaled-back Settlement expansion in the last 40-50yrs. This is purely aspirational, as is most of his speech.
2. Supporting Fatah and sidelining Hamas, primarily because Hamas is framed as a terrorist organization, just splits Palestinian unity, a divide and conquer/control strategy that prompted Hamas' creation in the first place by Israel. Let's not forget that Fatah 40 yrs ago as the PLO was also labeled a terrorist organization, but one also need to remember that any organization fighting occupation are liberation or freedom fighters.
1. Olmert was absolutely ready to claw back a number of settlements. However, he specifically was unwilling to claw back Ariel (which Sussman correctly points out was erected deliberately to divide Nablus from Ramallah). Ariel was perhaps THE major hangup between Olmert and Abbas. It was a total impasse, one that it's difficult to imagine any Israeli government being willing to move past. And that's ignoring Ma'ale Adumim, perhaps a greater affront to Palestinian contiguity as it lays claim to East Jerusalem. If they won't claw back Ariel, they sure as hell won't claw back Ma'ale Adumim.
2. Hamas was not created by Israel nor was their creation prompted by Israeli reconciliation or picking winners. Israeli refusal to implement Oslo or produce a viable peace deal, as well as quiet support for Hamas through Qatar, helped their rise, but it would be wrong to say Israel "created" them. (Also, Fatah's naked corruption didn't help). You are right though that handselecting a peace partner and imposing them by force is doomed to fail, any peace that came from such an obvious subversion of Palestinian will would be completely illegitimate in the eyes of every Palestinian (which would spark more subversion and terror, which would strengthen the Israeli right who would proclaim they have no legitimate peace partner, and round and round we go...)
This does not necessarily spell doom -- well, the settlements kind of do, but imagine a miracle occurs and they actually aren't a problem. The US comes in and strongarms the Fatah puppet government into power in Gaza. Then what? If the answer is "more of the same," the region's headed for "more of the same, or worse." But if we force through a good peace deal (unlikely to come from the Biden government, unimaginable from any rabidly pro-Israeli Trump government), roughly along the lines of the Olmert-Abbas plan, and the region starts to see growth, economic development, life improving under peacetime conditions... it _might_ work. Of course, Fatah would have to run a strict police state to khold their fragile legitimacy together, and Israel would continue to run heinous "preemptive" CT operations, but so long as more of Palestine starts looking like Ramallah, then such an ugly little neocolonial scheme could hold together an enduring peace and an easing of tensions over time.
I don't know about you, but I find the scheme I've just typed up hideous. Again, I think it _could_ work, but it's ugly, no? But then, all the options here are looking ugly to me. The Israeli right will not give up. The question I think we have to ask ourselves is "is this the type of world we want to live in?" And if the answer is "no," we need to figure out what type of world we _do_ want to live in, and how to bring it to fruition.
@@sammosaurusrex as thoughtful a comment as I've seen on YT on this topic. Thanks.
Needless to say, this is a hugely complex and intractable problem. There're many layers and facets that need to come together. Here's my wishful thinking list (I will say that I wish well for Palestinians AND Israelis in Palestine. But I'm sure the Zionists will furiously disagree):
1. The US needs to be 'neutralized' from any role. There's no prospect of a Dem or Rep in the WH and having a majority in Congress that is going to support a viable 2-state solution. It's ALL lip-service and strawman, followed by gaslighting. Even a Cornel West presidency won't make any difference. That is about as remote as it gets.
2. The International Community 'forces' the Israeli Govt to accept a 2-state based on pre-1967 borders. I know Palestinians disagree 1967 borders is just and fair, but that's a starting point. This necessarily entails dismantling of ALL settlements in the West Bank. Cue Zionists cries of "Exodus!!!", but settlements are a violation of International Law, so who cares.
3. The International Community will 'force' a unity Palestinian Government comprising representative from the West Bank and Gaza. Could be through proportional elections. Build consensus on the parameters of a viable Palestinian state.
4. Both sides, Israel and Palestine cannot be held hostage by extremists. So bombings by Palestinian terrorists (bus-stops, etc) or IDF violence/Settler provocations, must be handled as police matters and perpetrators brought to justice. The U.N. may have to play a role as peace-keepers/police here. And yes, I recognize the U.N.'s record in these roles are patchy at best.
5. Jerusalem will be an International City. With Jews, Christians, Muslim quarters protected under International Law. There'll be no shortage of provocations to stir trouble, so those funding abetting trouble-makers will also be culpable & pay a hefty price.
6. West Bank and Gaza need a land-bridge connection, under U.N. auspices. Israel territory remains contiguous, but a beidge connecting the Palestinian territories will provide sea access for Palestine. Any attack on this bridge will trigger Israeli port facilities for Palestinian use/part-ownership.
7. Infrastructure, both Israeli and Palestine will have joint access/ownership to infrastructure funding in energy, water, agrifoods, climate-change, education. This makes developmental success mutually incentivized for both sides.
8. De-militarization. IDF has no juridiction, land/air/sea over sovereign Palestinian territory. Palestine can have a self-defence force, but no long-range weapons. No stationing of heavy weapons closer than 12km from the borders.
These 8 points are certainly incomplete, and there're many questions/problems with each. I'm no expert, and these should not be seen as 'answers or solutions'. But I figure it's better to have discussions on "how-to", rather than "no way".
Did he say Israelstine?!?! LMAOOOO much needed comic relief in this stressful situation! 😂😂😂 really appreciate the hopefulness he instilled!!
I gotta go with Sam, as much as l agree with most of Gideon Levy ‘s but the settlements must go. The money to do,it is not the problem.
(a) 9:35 land swaps - swap with what exactly - parts of Israel? (b) In the 6 years since this debate Hamas is getting stronger - helped by the collapse of neighbouring Syria and weapons supplied by Iran (c) Israelis politics is drifting ever right-wing and has since the time of the assassination of Yitzak Rabin in 1994 - most Israelis prefer low level war than a unpalatable peace accord which would only last a few years anyway (d) the idea that the 700,000 settlers can be moved is a complete logistical non-starter - evacuating settlers from Gaza in 2000 was problematic enough whose population was a fraction of the size
a) Yes, land swaps with Israel. This has been a core of all peace plans going back to Camp David. Barak only offered 12% annexation with no compensation, the Americans put forward a proposal for around 9% annexation with 2% compensation by land swaps. Olmert's plan was for about 6% annexation with 5% compensation by landswaps, Abbas' counter proposal was around 2% annexation with 2% compensation. The land swaps are not an obstacle to peace, both peace parties agreed to them (although peace is very distant now).
b) This conflict will determine the status of Hamas. Politically they will almost undoubtedly be strengthened for their resistance to the occupation, though militarily they may be temporarily hobbled. Rendering Hamas impotent and propping up a puppet government who brings development to the region could work in theory, if Fatah were offered a good enough peace deal (and a decent deal sure as heck ain't coming from the Israeli government, and is unlikely to come from the Biden government too). Such an option would be immoral anyways, but it could conceivably work.
c) Yep. It's pretty common to ascribe this to the cycle of violence, and there's definitely some truth to that. Hamas commits a crime which strengthens the right, the right responds outrageously which strengthens Hamas, and back and forth and round and round we go... But I've seen Chomsky ascribe it to "the logic of occupation" invading the minds of Israelis, and I think that's maybe a more true framing. Imagine what it must feel like to witness an unjustifiable regime holding down Palestinians with violence day in and day out. Your mind has to do two things to alleviate the cognitive dissonance of existing at the top of this unjust hierarchy: First, it has to justify the violence; this violence is ugly, but it keeps me safe. Second, it has to explain why the violence was necessary in the first place; "they hate us because we are Jewish," that sort of thing. Thus, even the Kibbutzniks are turned away from peace by the difficult reality of existing in such a society, the fear of what will happen when the Israeli boot is taken off the throat of the Palestinian people supersedes their (real) desire for peace and justice. I'm speaking from psychological experience, but not as an Israeli; this psychology is identical to the White Liberal mentality towards Black people in my home country, the United States.
d) Yep. (Although it was actually around 9,000 settlers who were evacuated from Gaza, no individual settlement has a population much greater than 2,000). It's basically hopeless. It's worth noting that even Abbas' plan kept roughly 60% of settlers in place; everyone agrees that Beitar Illit and Modi'in Illit are here to stay. But it is difficult to imagine any Israeli government evacuating Ariel or Ma'ale Adumim. Maybe if imposed by an outside force, but that will never happen either.
Overall, I'm feeling pretty hopeless today. I think my brain has finally gone numb from so much crying, and now I just don't feel it anymore. Here's to hoping the news is better in the decades to come, because God knows these next couple years are going to be hell.
Great speech!
From Israel foreign ministry
The two state solution never worked.
From this civilized debate. And then there's Ben Saphiro.
Talking about solutions requires one to skip over the end of war, peacemaking step.
Maybe end the occupation first?
13:18 - the refugees wont be allowed to go home in the two state solution
Q.E.D
Some points are very valid and arguments are pretty convincing but I still do not think that two-state solution is the only outcome possible.
IT IS NOT.
A two-state solution would lead to Israel and Palestine becoming like India and Pakistan. They would become hostile to each other and mutual respect for one another is would be like expecting Donald Trump to actually make sense. As far as Hamas is concerned, if there are two-states wouldn't Hamas use the past treatment of the Palestinians as a propaganda and incentive to end more lives?
Palestinians are suppressed at the moment and therefore have not been able seek aid. What is the guarantee that they would not seek revenge? What if something like the Indo-Pak war started? A one-state solution is possible. A federal government can be established in Israel. Something like the Belgian model should be formed and that would prevent Israelis and Palestinians from killing each other because then they would be mutually dependent on each other for security.
T'was mentioned that Hamas has become dormant. Israel is not exactly moving towards two-state solution the only thing it is doing is settling Jews in the West Bank which is basically making it more difficult for a two-state solution. So don't u think Hamas becoming dormant may have to do more with Jews being integrated into the West Bank rather than a two-state solution.
Even if you look at history, during the Ottoman Empire, Israelis and Palestinians were not exactly stabbing each other or living in two different states. It is a proof that one-state is possible. so just NO
One state is not possible. Jews would never accept to live with their enemies that is jut plainly stupid.
*****
If Palestinians would accept that it might work whereas one state solution simply cant work. You can have one state between two friendly nation and even that is hardly to maintain see UK or I am from Czech Republic former Czechoslovakia. We love Slovak people and they love us but Slovak people rather wanted a split because of some really stupid problems.
***** I referred to Belgium....the french and the dutch were not on good terms but when they formed a nation keeping each other's wants in mind they made a nation with a stable economy whereas take india and pakistan they hated each other got separated and all it led to was dispute over resources, unstable economies, wars and hostility towards each other. Whether they like it or not fact is if they live as one state they will cooperate to survive.....if they separate into two states they will go to war..... again....
Hostility is not against international law. U cant determine how people will feel or react. What we must accept is international law. Many states are hostile towards each other. But they exist. Leave 'if' statements out and apply international law for once in more than 60 years of conflict. People are suppressed everywhere even in Israel. However, these are not justifications for not forming a state.
One state solution has all the problems you just outlined, except within Isreal's borders, and with a population that will eventually out number of Isrealis.
The level of hope Sam gave was so reassuring. I was one of those people who thought it was impossible, but Im going to think now that peace is possible.
That makes me smile, Husna : )
Think again
DEAR Sam sussman what ur saying it is out touch I’m certain that ucan get suits with in Hollywood.
Once the Palestinians will embrace reality and will agree to receive all they CAN as opposed to all which they WANT there will be peace.
reality of being robbed lol
Debating a plausible constitution could change the frame for one state.
Sussman equalizes the parties and thus becomes pro-israel at the expense of the non-jews.
The 2 state solution is the only way to bring peace to the region
well prepared .............. this debate is best i ever seen on two state solution ..............hand off to this guy and oxford to taking this initiative to bring before the views of different people on such issue effecting the contemporary chaos .......
He made equal between the one stealing land with the one fighting for his stolen land 🤦🏻♂️
Why does he sound like Cameron in this scene from Ferris Bueller?
ua-cam.com/video/X2ttCXTD0Z8/v-deo.html
I couldn't put my finger on it but THAT'S IT!
Be like Jesus, forgive.
alternative. british created the problem. part of the british isles should be allocated for an israeli state.
Brilliant, agreed with every single word.
This is the only way.
What is this guy saying.
Can only imagine how much shame his children and grandchildren will have watching their father in this video arguing for an apartheid ethnostate.
That is so much Crap that Israel is an Apartheid State. Arabs have more might in In Israel than they have in almost all Arab Countries.. What about all the Jews who got thrown out of Arab Countries. What about the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who worked with Hitler to Stop Jews from coming into Israel to escape Annhilation from the Nazis.
This boy is a classic example of a Romantic, at least in appearance, Manal Cheema get it right. There will be no two state solution for the better or worse it does not matter. Two state solution is a mouth peace for such idiots and romantics.
New state solution
I love how Israeli always sympathize with both sides yet Palestinians never sympathize with Israel
Jordan sits on 75 % of te League of Nations Mandate .
😂
Xxxxer
very nice but all yellow.the real q is Jew or Muslim or Cristen have a claim on the land. that is the q
Gaza joined on to a new state in the Sinai and Judah Sumeria & Hebron have residentship but not citizenship.
מיכאל Lamont a White claiming in Middle East, go back to Europe.
There’s nothing call judah and summer 😡
The moment i became suspicious is when the speaker declared Gideon Levi as a brave person and his personal hero. In reality Gideon Levis opinions are so extreme and frowned upon that he is considered to be a radical even by the israeli political left.
Even if with two state solution there is no long lasting peace for both of them till The prince of peace who is Jesus Christ comes it will happen soon.He give the land to the Jewish people as the eternal possession as he promised to the father Abraham and his descendants. Jer.27:5(Bible)
The Jews have lost Gods favour. They rejected the promised Messiah as a nation and their system was ended in 70 CE. Acts 15:14 clearly shows a good relationship with God is no more determined by ethnicity.
I object to calling the two groups "Israelis and Palestinians". Irsraelis and (some) Arabs are both Palestinians. But, it is incorrect to refer to them as these two groups. It suggests that the Arabs are the rightful rulers of the land. The proper term is "Israelis and Arabs" or "Israelis and Political Islamists", which better describes the ruling ideologies of the governments which are in competition to rule the land. The PA and the Israeli governments. It is absolutely clear that the Israeli government is a legitimate freedom loving government, while the PA is not and thus it cannot rule.
In Palestine you will find ethnic Palestinians who are Christian but i do agree to a degree what u mean by political Islam which i don't see as a problem just like i don't see a problem with Israel being a Jewish state. But i do object u calling Israel just Israel because they categorically call themselves a Jewish state.
Byron Maxad Political Islam is in no way comparable to the degree of religion that plays a role in the government of Israel. Political Islam is totalitarian and oppressive.
So you agree its a Jewish state?
Byron Maxad I agree it has some special exceptions to being a secular state, but it is not a theocracy like Political Islam, like the Arabs, Iranians have.
lol Special exceptions being what?? an apartheid state? having second class citizens who have partial rights?? Listen im not a big fan of Hamas but what i can say is there is only one side that professes to be freedom loving and democratic and it ain't Hamas. This fallacy of equivocation that you use when referring to "Political Islam" i find very strange would u call Indonesia state which is run using Political Islam? For example i'm not gonna equivocate Zionist Jews with other Jews when the former slaughters 2000 Palestinians. Your form of argumentation might sway your fellow Europeans and Americans who grew up watching the history channel but i grew up with pernicious wars of Congo which took 11 million lives so excuse me if i see thru your cause as meagre and indefensible.
Nablus was Jewish before it was Arab