The big problem is even a 2 state solution is spoken about in very Trail of Tears type ways by many, with the expectation that millions of people having to again uproot to go and live in whatever enclave they have been given (forced out of Gaza into the whatever patch of land in the west bank they are given). Different people can agree in principal to a generic 2SS, but disagree wildly when actual details of what that means to them are raised
2 Likes
I canāt see any two-state solution holding water. How would they do it? Uproot all settlements in the west bank in order to come back to former frontiers? That would mean civil war in Israel, as the settlers are heavily armed and never will give up what they have āearntā.
And then? Move the 2.3 million Gazaouis to the West Bank in order to have a unified Palestinian territory? It would be as monstrous as the current situation.
Maybe Iām repeating myself, but Israelis and Palestinians will have to learn to live as one people, within one federal, laic state. Everyone will have the same political rights, and total religious freedom. Then, there will be prosperity and peace. Before that, no chance.
Maybe itās time that the US remember their own history, and propose their state model as an example for both communities. The EU would be well-inspired too to show them that it can be done, and how. Compare Europe in 1945 with Europe now.
5 Likes
Or, letās say, compare Europe in 1933 with Europe now. 
At the time, there were still huge tensions between protestants and catholics. And the widespread hate against Jews was also a religious problem (as seen with the passivity of the catholic church in the face of genocide), even if the Nazis made it a racial issue in the first place.
I know that the two situations canāt be compared one for one, but if you had shown nowadayās Europe to someone who lived before ww2, heād never have believed it.
4 Likes
No chance to that. The demographic changes and the birthrate differences between the Israelis and Palestinians will not make Israel accept this.
Not equal political rights at any rate.
Probably worth noting that many Jews are not exactly comforted by the example of present-day Europe
ā¦and you havenāt even factored in the over three million Palestine refugees in Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. Where are they going to settle?
No. It is the jewish lobby. Even the Israeli media refer to Americaās āJewish Lobbyā - see for instance no less august sources than Mearsheimer.
Does anyone take him seriously at all? Genuine question, because I thought he lost all credibility with the fiasco last year.
What heās written in the past still makes him a heavy hitter. Like a lot of feted old men, he doesnāt know when to disappear into quiet retirement
https://x.com/unhumanrights/status/1719783887633527153?s=46&t=wYI1UQq4Zm7qgLRSA8YMdw
https://x.com/ungeneva/status/1718326582924710132?s=46&t=wYI1UQq4Zm7qgLRSA8YMdw
https://x.com/amnesty/status/1719320410322550886?s=46&t=wYI1UQq4Zm7qgLRSA8YMdw
https://x.com/halfbakedhumans/status/1719101907015209035?s=46&t=wYI1UQq4Zm7qgLRSA8YMdw
https://x.com/ungeneva/status/1719382558603878700?s=46&t=wYI1UQq4Zm7qgLRSA8YMdw
Common theme from world wide organisations
UN Human Rights Watch
UN Geneva convention
Amnesty International
International Crimes Court
UNICEF
WHO
5 Likes
Note the notable abstentions, USA and EU 
1 Like
I donāt think thereās much doubt now that we are talking about a genocide.
4 Likes
FIFYā¦
Iād beg to differ. Israel has the means to commit genocide, but Hamas does not. I think thatās the biggest difference at the moment.
Which is why I reiterate my earlier point, Iād love to lock up the settlers and warmongers in Israel with the entirety of Hamas, in a sealed room to fight to the death with their fists, and let the innocent civilians live in peace and harmony.
6 Likes
That is the fundamental problem with the genocide language in international law. There is no test for capacity, it is just intent. The means are not really relevant.
So 1400 dead including whole families machine gunned in their homes does not constitute genocide. How many deaths would you need to term it āgenocideā. Would 2000 be enough? 10000? Interested to know what figure you would be comfortable with?
Take a listen to todayās edition of From Our Own Correspondent on BBC Radio 4 and tell me again killing 1400 people is not āgenocideā.
Donāt really care to āboth sidesā this, but it is exasperating to see how little these organizations have directed criticism at Hamas. In a conflict, all combatants have a responsibility to minimize casualties. Hamas has been recognized as the government of Gaza for a generation, at the insistence of some of these same organizations. That is why the rules of war are applicable. The section of the Geneva Convention that condemns Israel for using disproportionate force in proximity to civilians equally condemns Hamas for sheltering its forces in a civilian population.
In answer to āwhere else can they goā, the rules of law can require a force with no prospect for victory to surrender if that would minimize innocent casualties.