The end of the 'two-state solution' is the beginning of a more just future

One might say anything but that does make armistice lines into borders. This constant demand for a return to the 1967 borders is based on a fraudulent principle as no such borders existed.

Perhaps it is time the World demands that israel defines it's borders, they are after all only about 64 years late in doing so.

That would give a starting point in any negotiations if the world knew what actually constitutes israeli territory.

Perhaps it is time the World demands that israel defines it's borders

Israel will define its borders once a pro-Israel US Admin./president is in office. Until then, as they have done in the past, Israel will stall the so called peace talks and continue its course of land theft along with the continuous violations of human rights and international law.......and in the meantime, Hamas will fire-off a few rockets/missiles into southern Israel as a reminder to the Zionist Regime that they are "alive and well". Get rid of Hamas and the Likud and only then might there be a chance for peace and the Palestinians having a country of their own.

No G Man

israel have no intention of ever defining it's borders, as long as they don't have any boarders they can keep annexing land they occupy at will and claim it belonged to them from -48.

Israel has always profited from the lack of border definition. They're not going to change their minds about that now.

Once the pro-US Admin. is in office, Israel will define its borders to include the entire West Bank.......with the blessing of the US Admin. of course, that has been their goal.

Except that doing that would result in current allies going unco-operative, reducing U.S. sphere of influence. The U.S. would be really stupid to do something like that.

Israel will define its borders once a pro-Israel US Admin./president is in office

WTF???

A pro-Israel U.S. president is in office:

1- Obama sold Israel bunker-buster bombs

The Israelis first requested the bunker busters in 2005, only to be rebuffed by the Bush administration.

While publicly pressuring Israel to make deeper concessions to the Palestinians, President Obama has secretly authorized significant new aid to the Israeli military that includes the sale of 55 deep-penetrating bombs known as bunker busters, Newsweek has learned.

2- Obama's remarks re: Israel

The notion that he isn't "pro-Israel" originated on right-wing websites-- with more than a little help from Faux News. Polls consistently show that the mast majority of Americans are pro-Israel-- so one of the things the right uses to attack the President is the falsehood that Obama is anti-Israel (and also a Muslim, Kenyan "Socialist", lol :-)

And BTW, one of the main arguments from the right is that he wants them to return to the 1967 cease fire lines. (Which isn't true-- they are currently there. its the pre-1967 lines-- not the '67 lines).

But here's something the right-wingers won't tell you-- his policy on returning to those "lines" is no different than any other recent president-- and that Includes Bush! (American policy towards the Israel-Palestine conflict hasn't changed....don't fall for the propaganda from the far right)

My granddad used to say, "only believe half of what you read, and question the other half."

My granddad used to say, "only believe half of what you read, and question the other half."

I totally agree.

(The problem, of course, is which half? LOL :)

Knowing my granddad he would have questioned the half he believed. :)

Their politics are disconnected from international consensus on Israel.

Indeed, but this seems to have been usually the case. I heard on NPR's Talk of the Nation this morning that Zionist hawks are indeed interested in suspended animation (so to speak) for a "more favorable U.S. president". It's not just an outlandish proclamation pulled out of thin air.

So...as long as we have a Democrat president we can expect a freeze on hostilities? One can only hope.

One might say the illusion of borders

Yes-- one might indeed say that. But its actually not true, and actually misleading. The fact is, they are "armistice lines"-- not borders. (You can :"get smarter" about that HERE)

Things will change from our (US) current alliances. It may happen that Israel will define it's eastern border at the Jordan but I suspect they won't because it would foreclose on expansion into the greater levant (Syria & Jordan).

Olmert's centrist coalition already offered to pull out of almost the entire areas of Judea/Sammaria-- it fact, I believe he offered something like 90% of it to the Arabs (of course they refused). IMO the days of the current right-wing Israeli coalition, like the rule of the neo-cons under Bush, in the US, are numbered.

Olmert's centrist coalition already offered to pull out of almost the entire area of Judea/Sammaria-- it fact, I believe he offered something like 90% of it to the Arabs (of course they refused). And I think that Netanyahu & co. will be out on their collective a$$es long before Tisha B'Av!

btw - the Republican Party has endorsed annexation of the West Bank, , they say Samaria & Judea and Republican IL Joe Walsh has introduced, in the House, a corresponding resolution for US support of annexation. Their politics are disconnected from international consensus on Israel.

Meh.

Romney's chances of being elected are like, as the saying goes, a "snowball's chance in hell!"

(Not that there's anything wrong with that :)

Zionist hawks are indeed interested in suspended animation (so to speak)

So what else is new?

Perhaps it is time the World demands that israel defines it's borders, they are after all only about 64 years late in doing so.

Nope.

That would be in violation of UN resolution 242.

242 clearly states that the final borders are subject to negotiations by both parties-- in other words, rather than Israel or the Arabs unilaterally declaring what the Israel-Palestine borders should be, they should be settled by negotiations between the two sides.

If israel declared what it wanted as borders, the Arabs would reject it-- and vice versa. True peace cannot be imposed by either party-- not by outside powers-- it can only happen by agreement between the two sides-- which means they both must compromise, they both must give up sdome of their demands!

If either side unilaterally declares borders-- than we will be rightback to where we are now-- off and on hostilities-- and no peace!

But then Krischna, how can the "Pro-israeli" side demand that Palestine declares it's borders in-order to be recognised as a state? Is that not creating a catch 22 situation?

"Declare your boarders so you can be a state but do it without knowing the borders of your neighbouring country".

.

?

But then Krischna, how can the "Pro-israeli" side demand that Palestine declares it's borders in-order to be recognised as a state? Is that not creating a catch 22 situation?

Which "pro_israeli side"? There are various factions-.

When (hopefully soon) the current right wing Israel government is ousted, and Israelreturns to control by a more moderate coalition, the entire government position will change.

(IMO, peace is not possible under a Likud led coalition-- OTOH, at least on the Israeli side, there is a real desire to make the compromises that necessary for peace. For example-- under a government coalition by the leftist Labour Party, or better yet, a return to the policies of the previous government-- led by the centrist kadima Party.

Talking about the position of the "pro-Israel side based upon the views of only one faction (and a fairly extreme right wing faction at that) makes about as much sense as talking about "the Pro-U.S. side' based upon one faction-- for example, the neo-con policies of George W Bush! (Now that Obama's in office, the policies of "the pro-American side" have changed , eh?)

Th sort of gross generalizations you are attempting to make are neither accurate nor helpful.

"pro_israeli side"

I meant the "Pro-israeli" side here on the "vine" who used the argument,( leading up to the Palestinian request at the UN ), that Palestine could not be granted state hood because they had no defined borders.

When Kadima expressed a policy it was basically support for the Road Map plan which specifically had a goal of 2 states. That died when Sharon refused to quit settlement expansion in 2003.

Kadima was formed near the end of 2005. two state solution was (and still is) the only viable option to resolve the I/P conflict. two states for two peoples, living side by side, with peace and security for both. all the rest is great for on-line, message board conversations, but that's about it.

(IMO, peace is not possible under a Likud led coalition-- OT

Historically speaking, that's actually incorrect...a right-wing led government has a far better chance (to reach an agreement, make sure it passes through the Knesset) than any other Coalition. obviously, though, you'll need to have the right leaders at the helm to get it done. this current coalition is lacking badly in that department, as does the PA, for that matter.

t 2 state idea is still alive in the imagination

Still alive. Point. the imagination part is strong only with those who think it's dead.

There's been a great deal of time and energy invested in the idea.

And there will be much more in the future. right until we reach that agreement.

did you see the recent Frank Barat interview with Norman Finkelstein?

No. I know who Norman is (although haven't had the pleasure of seeing or hearing him anywhere), but never heard of the other guy.

I have a problem seeing how current realities might accommodate that future

I understand as well. however, myself, many others truly believe it's still possible, and within reach, in-spite of said current realities. I'm not ignoring them, or the many missed opportunities (in my eyes), along the way. and although I'm not as optimistic (who is?) as I was back in 93', or 2000 for that matter, with respect to the process as a whole, its success chances, I know it's a long way from being over.

Neither this current government nor Abbas seem up to the task, as of yet. but Bibi would have never sniffed the premiership again if not for the many missed opportunities beforehand. Likud was almost left for dead after the 06' elections (12 Knesset seats).

Thanks digcreation. I'll check it out.

Hi Meloney.

It seems you were having trouble finding it.

Try this link-- it may work better.

(And if you get a chance, you really should check it out-- its very good-- and very detailled!)

thank you Krishna. although I don't see a problem with my link, I do appreciate the assist.

I did my own independent research on the Herzl movement and know that Israel didn't begin with the U.N. declaration. The point is that that was then and this is now, as in the Israeli occupation being the road block to a Palestine nation, with ever encroaching illegal settlements.

No amount of past history is going to sugarcoat current atrocities.

The point is that that was then and this is now, as in the Israeli occupation being the road block to a Palestine nation, with ever encroaching illegal settlements.

Why?

If there were top be negotiations without pre-conditions-- one of the things that would be negotiated would be the conditions for peace. Of course both sides would have to make concessions-- the israelis would have to give up most or all of Judea and Sammaria.

Remember all the settlements in Gaza-- that were supposed to be a "permanent obstacle to peace"? Well, they no longer are!

Here is another interesting piece of history. It exposes and defines Christian Zionism

I am quite familiar with them. And while they have some power in some areas (yes, Texas is one)-- that shouldn't surprise you-- look at some of the Republican presidential candidate-- in fact, Rick perry, gov. of Texas.

But-- they are a minority. There are several republican candidate like that-- and it looks like none of them will even get the republican nomination!

And in any event-- Obama will be easily re-elected.

Thanks for the laugh.

You seem to really occassionally post jokes.