Two states not a magic solution, says J Street head

[Mosby]

WASHINGTON — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump do not necessarily have to utter the words “two-state solution” or “Palestinian state” during Wednesday’s scheduled White House meeting in order to send out a pro-peace message, the head of the dovish lobbying group J-Street said Tuesday.

“These words are not magical,” Jeremy Ben-Ami said. “The end result that J Street favors is that the State of Israel should have borders and that those borders should be recognized by its neighbors and by the world.

“In a sense, the only state we’re really interested in is the State of Israel,” he said.

“We do believe that there should be a Palestinian state and relations between the State of Israel and all the states around it, but it is not absolutely necessary for Trump and Netanyahu to pledge allegiance to a “two-state solution,” he added.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/two-states-not-a-magic-solution-says-j-street-head/

The reality of the situation is finally sinking in at J-street.

The only workable solution at this point is a Jordanian protectorate for the Palestinians.

[oberliner]

1. Doubtful that Jordan would go for your idea

At some point, however something has got to give. Status quo is not sustainable forever.

[Mosby]

2. True

What could make Jordan go for it? Lots of money and direct, unencumbered access to the Med for trade.

There would also have to be a way to implement it while giving cover to Jordan on the Arab street.

[Ken Burch]

13. What possible good would Jordanian re-annexation of Palestine do?

Palestinians never wanted to be Jordanian citizens, and all Jordan would bring to the situation would be brutal, relentless oppression.

Collective punishment of the people of Palestine by Israel has never achieved anything; neither would collective punishment of the people of Palestine by the Hashemite Kingdom.

The best way to get Palestinians to react differently to Israel would be to give them breathing space, let them live their daily lives free of relentless harassment by the IDF, and to admit that Palestinians have legitimate grievances about how they've been treated under the Occupation.

It's been seventeen straight years of the Likud hardline and nothing good has come of it. Why expect different results from a harder hard line?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

4. Why isn't it?

Forever is a long time, obviously - ultimately the sun will explode - but if you want to imagine the forseeable future, an Israeli boot stamping on a Palestinian face for some limited value of forever seems much the most likely outcome.

[geek tragedy]

6. That was the case in South Africa too.

Netanyahu is our generation's P.W. Botha.

[Mosby]

7. except for the fact that the IP conflict is defined by Palestinian intransigence

The Palestinians could negotiate with the Israelis at any time - instead they choose to reject the Jewish connection to the region and support the de-Judification/historical revisionism of J'lem, support terrorist activity through monetary awards, brainwashed their youth to hate Jews and have created a welfare state that is not self sufficient.

You think Zionism has failed? What about Palestinian nationalism?

[geek tragedy]

8. Yes, yes everything is the other guy's fault nt

[oberliner]

9. You don't think everything is Israel's fault?

It sometimes comes across that you do.

[geek tragedy]

14. The Israelis have all of the power

and thus a larger responsibility to stop actively undermining the prospects of a negotiated agreement.

Obviously the corruption of the PA or the viciousness of Hamas are not Israel's fault.

[Ken Burch]

11. It's equally defined by Israeli instransigence, especially Likud intransigence.

There was never any excuse for Netanyahu's insistence on relentless settlement expansion, on the use of checkpoints within Palestine as collective punishment of all Palestinians for the acts of a violent few, on the theft of the olive and lemon trees, on the theft of Palestinian land by the unjust routing of the security wall through Palestinian territory when there was never any excuse for building it one millimeter past the Green Line.

Almost all the suffering in this conflict has been experienced by Palestinians. It hasn't been Israeli homes being demolished. It hasn't been Israeli towns being cleared to move in settlers. The overwhelming majority of casualties have been Palestinians, and many of those casualties were children.

Neither side has behaved well in this conflict, but it's bloody arrogant of you to act as if the conflict only continues because of the Palestinians.

BTW, the PLO recognized Israel in 1994, so a significant part of the Palestinian people DO accept "the Jewish connection to the land".

As to those who don't...how would putting them back under the rule of their former Hashemite oppressors change that?

You don't want peace. You never did. If you did, you wouldn't put all the blame on the Palestinian side and you wouldn't act as if they are collectively devoid of humanity.

[Ken Burch]

12. What good would it do to put Palestine back under Jordanian rule?

It's not as though the whole thing is the Palestinians' fault and its impossible to persecute people into peace.

[geek tragedy]

5. J Street should just disband already.

Trump's been in office for under 4 weeks and they're already down with a little apartheid.

Risible.

Only solution at this point is a binational state protecting Jew and Arab citizens equally.

Zionism, like Communism, is an ideology that was given a chance to fail, and did exactly that.

[Ken Burch]

10. A Jordanian protectorate would be inherently unjust to the people of Palestine.

It goes without saying that Jordan would allow no self-rule whatsoever and would simply treat a protectorate as re-annexation.

No one in Palestine would ever accept it.