Enforced 2 state solution?

[AdamRyan]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68137220

David Cameron today:

"As that happens, we - with allies - will look at the issue of recognising a Palestinian state, including at the United Nations," he told the Conservative Middle East Council. "That could be one of the things that helps to make this process irreversible."

I don't often say this about Conservatives, but well done Cameron. I think this is a good idea. There is no need for Israel to dictate the 2 state solution, especially when they explicitly say Gaza is not their responsibility (I.e. its stateless).

Yes, the government doesn't want 2 states. That's important no matter how much you try to trivialise it.

Can you direct me towards where the ICJ have said that Israel is not committing genocide? No you can't because they haven't even started the case yet. The interim ruling was never going to rule on that because believe it or not you need to examine evidence in court trials.

Again, you don't understand ethnic cleansing if you think people have to be "removed". 85% of Gazans have been displaced.

The aim of Israel is clear too. And that one will finish up at the Hague in years to come.

@ConnieCounter
Displaced within their own territory for their safety. yes, not ethnically cleansed. Same as over 200 000 Israelis that have been displaced. from all ethnic groups. It's called war.
There is no genocide.

There will be plenty of evidence and it won't be what South Africa and many others are hoping for. I wonder why they aren't accusing Sudan of genocide.

If there are proved genocide or war crimes then those responsible must be prosecuted from all sides and nations.

Lots of information will come to light once UNWRA is fully exposed . As I mentioned in my first post, the first good thing about Brexit is the UK's ability to control its overseas funding and am very pleased so many other countries are seeing where the problem really lies.

Oh not this again.
What is documented isn't what is repeatedly claimed. A fact that I only know from reading these threads.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full

What Hamas mean is subject to interpretation; by stating they want "the destruction of Israel" you are putting your own spin on what they say.

This kind of inaccuracy lacks nuance and makes it difficult to engage in a discussion. For me personally, reading what Hamas wrote vs what has been claimed repeatedly on these threads has made me more suspicious of pro-Israeli posters so I think you are shooting yourself in the foot a bit

Please just research ethnic cleansing at least. I'm sick of pro-Israelis not understanding it and misrepresenting it. It's been going on for 4 months.

@AdamRyan

"What Hamas mean is subject to interpretation; by stating they want "the destruction of Israel" you are putting your own spin on what they say."

Of course I am . try reading point 2 of your link. Where is this Palestinian state going to be then?? And chants "from the river to the sea" is just an advert for day trips.

Unless Hamas and its supporters recognises Israel as a state, there can't be 2 states if one of them doesn't actually "exist".

Thanks for putting the context to the thread anyway, better late than never.

Any by the way you don't have to be pro-Israeli to be anti-Hamas. I am extremely critical of the Israeli government but also a realist and historian.

Netanyahu also wants Israel to be 'from the river to the sea', but that seems acceptable.
Hamas have said they will accept a state on the 1967 borders.

I'm really new to following this closely and find the double standards striking. When Israeli government ministers make comments about getting the number of Palestinians in Gaza down to 200,000 so the Israelis can "make the desert bloom" that's seen as OK, playing to Israeli politics, not a serious suggestion, just one bad apple yadda yadda.

When Hamas talk about resisting the Zionist occupation from the river to the sea, that means they want Israel to be destroyed (or maybe all Jews, depending who is posting).

When I research what was actually said (being careful about sources etc) the Hamas statements are overaggerated and the Israeli government statements underplayed.

I can see the double standard and it makes it very hard to engage. Initially I was very supportive of Israel but this very striking double standard has changed my mind.

@AdamRyan well said, I completely agree with you on that.

From the charter, conveniently ignored:

Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.

I.e. the remainder of Israel stays under the control of the Israeli government, I.e. they accept an Israeli state.

🤔

@fizzybootlace
The ICJ have seen and heard enough to consider a plausible claim of genocide by the Israeli government and the IDF-

« In the context of genocide, however, even a finding of a plausible claim is shocking and extraordinary, and it has rightly been seized upon in media coverage of the decision. No state should even get close to the point at which an allegation of genocide becomes plausible. »

https://www.ejiltalk.org/speaking-the-law-plausibly-the-international-court-of-justice-on-gaza/

Written by a Professor of International Law

@AdamRyan

I can see why you think that but Netanyahu's comment was mistranslated, it's essentially to do with security. There's at good explanation in the Haaretz newspaper which is very anti Netanyahu.

The Israeli government is a coalition and a very wide range of parties have a seat on government.

The comment from Smotrich about Gaza has been criticised widely as it should be. He is a religious Zionist who is also homophobic which couldn't more against mainstream Israeli values.

The were massive demonstrations against Netanyahu across Israel last but it is at war and the government has to work together somehow.

Does Suella Braverman represent our government?

I appreciate you are new to following it but things are very polarised now which makes it difficult.

Not sure Braverman is a good example but lets go with it. In my opinion, yes Braverman does represent our government but she doesn't represent the average UK citizen.

In the same way nutters like Ben Gvir or Hamas represent their governments/administration but not necessarily the citizens.

Partly why it's so frustrating what's happening (to me). Hamas are not the Palestinians and yet so many posters seem to think what's happening in Gaza is reasonable because of Hamas.

I struggle with how a 2 state solution can possibly work. One of them has been occupied by IDF and Israeli settlers for decades and its population heavily suppressed - and I don't see Israel leaving it to become a true sovereign state. The other has 50% of its infrastructure totally wiped out including schools, universities, mosques as well as residential building and nearly 2 million people living in camps. What is David Cameron proposing to recognise?

I think if a state of Palestine was recognised, there would be more protections for the inhabitants of Gaza, more ways to get aid in and it would be clearer if Israel were breaking laws regarding sieges and illegal settlement.

I don't think he's suggesting rebuilding a state, I think its a legal thing.

The Israelis won't agree but maybe they don't have to. I can't see another way out that's acceptable really. It seems like the only other way out is genocide.

Something needs to give🤞

Disagree all you like, but he's not actually saying anything different to what he said two weeks ago:

"My noble friend makes a good point, which is that Hamas could end this tomorrow by saying that it was going to lay down its weapons or leave.

Everyone is aware that we want a sustainable ceasefire. That means Hamas not in power and not able to launch rockets and terror, and we have said we want to see an immediate pause so we can get aid in and hostages out.

However, in many ways, the very best outcome would be to see whether we could convert that immediate pause for aid and hostages into a sustainable ceasefire without further hostilities.

But for that to happen, a series of other things would have to happen: there would have to be immediate negotiations to release all the hostages, the Hamas leadership would have to leave Gaza, and we would have to be clear that there was no more danger of rocket and terror attacks on Israel. We would have to put together something based on the Palestinian Authority, backed by other Palestinians, going back into Gaza.

In many ways, that would be the best outcome, but if we call now for an immediate ceasefire with no further fighting when Hamas is still in power, still launching rockets and still capable of launching terror attacks, not only would we not have a sustainable ceasefire and peace but we would have no hope of the thing that I think many in this House would like to see, which is a two-state solution."

Tuesday 16 January 2024

He's not suggesting this is going to happen whilst Hamas remains in power in Gaza and still capable of launching attacks on Israel.

The price for any possible UK recognition of a future Palestinian State is the removal and/or elimination of Hamas from Gaza including power.

He's very clear that a two State Solution isn't possible without this, so he's laid down a condition here. It will NOT be acceptable to the UK Government to recognise a Palestinian State whereby Hamas remains in power and is capable of further attacks.

I'm afraid you're seeing what you want to see in Cameron's words today.

Or maybe you are. Or maybe we both are.

I read that as him talking about the conditions for a ceasefire. And today as him saying that the UK would support an earlier recognition of a Palestinian state without a ceasefire necessarily.

But regardless. Do you disagree that its necessary to take irreversible steps towards a Palestinian state without Israeli consent?

No, Cameron was talking about a condition for a ceasefire AND conditions as well as steps leading towards a two State Solution.

In both.

It's really not an either or situation. 🤷‍♂️

One of several conditions Cameron put forward is for Hamas to leave Gaza completely to live elsewhere in the Middle East, for example.

As for your question, no, any negotiation that results in a deal IS going to have to include Israeli consent. Any UK Government who suggests otherwise would be, rightly, held up as being massive hypocrites.

But no, the UK doesn't envisage Israel being excluded from that as its a vital element to the whole process.

I've said before I see a coalition of the willing in future - certain Western Governments, neighbouring Arab States and Israel. Demilitarisation of any future Palestinian State which Egypt advocates and their President stated would have brought stability decades ago is another.

When I was in Israel, many years ago, European students were referred to as "cheaper than Arabs". I remember being shocked, even then. Let's hope that attitude to Palestinians could eventually be stopped.

Agree totally!! All a nonsense, they know that it's always been the Arab states that have refused the 2 state option and chosen war. And they lose every time so round it goes again

It’s* *not that simple I’m afraid.

https://theintercept.com/2023/11/28/israel-palestine-history-peace/

That's a fascinating article fuss

I was struck by this from the US ambassador in 1949...very prescient

“There never has been a time [during negotiations] when a generous and far-sighted attitude on the part of the [Israelis] would not have unlocked peace. … As an advocate of the new state I hope they come to it eventually. Otherwise there will be no peace in the Middle East.”

"given the ongoing ethnic cleansing and genocide."

Neither of these have been proved by ICJ, so it might be more accurate to use the word 'alleged' in your post, in the interests of accuracy.

For balance -

https://luisafrodriguez.medium.com/four-times-palestinians-rejected-a-two-state-solution-27d8c05254b1