there's at least a glimmer of hope that it will actually happen. However, I'm still wondering if it's not too late. There are about 500.000 israelis living in the West Bank and Jerusalem settlements in total defiance of the 4th Geneva Convention, and their presence is already the biggest obstacle to a two-state solution. If they don't leave, there can be only one state in the area.

But how can the settlers ever be persuaded to leave? The talks in Amman are not going very well, Netanyahu isn't prepared to discuss anything that resembles a viable Palestinian state, and the US is actively trying to sink any attempts to pursue a two-state solution at the UN. What kind of solutions are left when Israel insists on continuing building in the West Bank? How can the current difference in legal status of people in Israel and the West Bank depending on whether they are Jews, Israeli Arabs or Palestinians be continued without Israel becoming an Apartheid state? Why can't the settlers see that they are creating the one-state solution on the ground?

I have no good answer to these questions, and it frustrates me somewhat.

Of course, it would be easy to say about Israel that they made their choice and now they will have to face the consequences, but I think it's wrong to let idiots like Netanyahu muscle through the one-state solution without resistance. I do think that some proponents of the one-state solution want to let Netanyahu continue to paint himself into a corner, but that's an immoral stance that would make the one-state to be born in sin as a punishment of Jews for zionism.

As you can see, I blame Israel for the one-state solution. That's because I strongly believe that Israel is the one to blame for the unviability of an eventual Palestinian state. All other issues, including the return of Palestinian refugees to Israel, Palestinian terrorism and the incompetence of Fatah are secondary. If there is no way to partition the areas of the former Palestine Mandate, it can't be partitioned into two states.

interesting if predictable to say the least

...which is the biggest agreement the PLO and Israel have ever signed off on. The PLO agreed to Israeli control of area C.

The EU recognized that agreement and now appear to be reneging on it, without even consulting Israel about it.

Talk about cognitive dissonance. The EU condemns Israel's action to defend themselves from terrorism as "colonialism", yet brings in the back hoes for their EU colonialism.

....on Oslo back in the 1990's. If they didn't like Israel having sovereignty over Area C, they shouldn't have signed it.

So does Israel get to do the same to some lucky European nation? Stir up some shit and go against some random EU government in the interest of peace and goodwill?

Last edited Tue Jan 17, 2012, 07:56 PM - Edit history (1)

the EU is not installing its own control or leadership it is just assisting the Palestinians with projects, the EU will have to get Israel's permission or their projects will meet the same fate as anything else undertaken by Palestinians in Area C without Israel's approval, it will be demolished and Israel will be free to deny permits of course

They are here to help. The arabs can't be trusted to make decisions without the EUs leadership. They are just innocent pawns, mere catalysts to the machinations of the world around them, unable to act on their own.

Israeli Embassy in Paris says had no foreknowledge of the French parliament's report, which was published two week ago, and thus did not refute it or work to moderate it.

<snip>

"The French parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee published an unprecedented report two weeks ago accusing Israel of implementing "apartheid" policies in its allocation of water resources in the West Bank.

The Israeli Embassy in Paris had no foreknowledge of the report and thus did not refute it or work to moderate it. Foreign Ministry officials called the incident "a serious diplomatic mishap."

The report said that water has become "a weapon serving the new apartheid" and gave examples and statistics that ostensibly back this claim.

"Some 450,000 Israeli settlers on the West Bank use more water than the 2.3 million Palestinians that live there," the report said. "In times of drought, in contravention of international law, the settlers get priority for water."

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/france-accuses-israel-of-water-apartheid-in-west-bank-1.407685

Rapport d'information déposé en application de l'article 145 du règlement, par la commission des affaires étrangères, en conclusion des travaux d'une mission d'information sur la géopolitique de l'eau n° 4070 déposé le 13 décembre 2011:
http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/13/pdf/rap-info/i4070.pdf

The report is very extensive, and only about 15 of the more than 300 pages deal with Israel and the Palestinians. Basically, the report accuses Israel of stealing the West Bank water, and then using it to enforce apartheid policies on the Palestinians.

First it was the EU report that said that Israel was destroying the two-state solution, then came this report, and now Nick Clegg is calling the settlements “vandalism”...

"...we will support whatever needs to be done for the sale of Palestinian development in the area regardless of Israel's planning policy."...the step was meant to reduce the amount of necessary building permits, saying that "European funding of vital projects like water infrastructure will be independent of Israeli authorities' approval."


How do EU bureaucrats plan on implementing projects in Israeli-controlled territory without Israeli permission? Do they plan an armed invasion? This just sounds like a lot more impotent-BDS and Israel-bashing. Europeans lost the right to tell Israelis what to do over 60 years ago.

... EU bureaucrats don't say they're going to approach the Israelis to build infrastructure projects. They say they will deliberately circumvent the Israeli government.

That is pretty much a textbook challenge to sovereignty. If I were the Israeli government, my question to EU pencil-pushers would be, "You and what army?"

So, why would Israel oppose any infrastructure project that's of benefit to the Palestinian people? You appear to think that Israel would oppose it....

... to be familiar with the Oslo Accords -- which gives Israel both Administrative and Civil control over Area C. Also, Area C only contains 4% of the West Bank Palestinian population.

So, to pretend this is to the benefit of the Palestinian people and not a dig at Israeli sovereignty is a nice little fantasy that fools absolutely no one.

is being crowded into 38% of the land area those are figures that do put things in perspective indeed

Israel doesn't have sovereignty over any territory other than within Israel itself. It's got nothing to do with Oslo, which anyone who is familiar with Oslo would understand...

Yeah, coz anyone wanting to create or improve Palestinian infrastructure is clearly having a dig at Israel!! (btw, that's the Israel that's inside the Green Line, not the Greater Israel that some folk love to fantasise over)

The EU has an obligation to respect the established rules and regulations, such as Oslo. The EU is not entitled to intentionally act unilaterally

All European states recognise Israel. The problem you and a few others have is that Israel doesn't have sovereignty over territory that's not part of Israel. So, I have to wonder if the confusion is down to actually believing that the West Bank is part of Israel or not understanding the difference between sovereignty and control of an area under occupation....

btw, I didn't spot any analogy at all in the post you replied to. Weird...

here are the stated aims of the EU from the article

The EU, the brief said, aims to:

Encourage Israel to change its policy and planning system for Area C and engage the Palestinian communities in access and developments
Reduce land and population vulnerability and facilitate better coordination of basic needs deliveries in Area C
Promote economic development in Area C
Increase visibility and accountability for the delivery of aid in Area C

Israel would of course be free to demolish any projects being undertaken without their consent as they have done in the past