Noam Chomsky talks about the distinction between proposing and advocating

[jakiner]

I can't wait until we get off of Oil. Then we won't even have to get involved with this anymore.

[VernonHuffman]

I rarely disagree with Noam. The problem with a two state solution is there is no Palestine left. Even if Israel withdrew settlers and pulled back to the 1967 lines, you'd need a corridor between the West Bank & Gaza, plus a lot of nonexistent infrastructure for viability.

On the other hand, with internationally enforced right of return and open elections, Israel/Palestine could become a single bilingual state, recognizing the equal rights of all. All but the war profiteers would be better off.

[tarnopol]

Btw, the IDF could have done exactly the same thing when they "pulled out" of Gaza -- but they would have missed the mostly Brooklyn-fueled National Trauma -- it was even sarcastically referred to in the Israeli press as "Operation National Trauma" -- that bore such wonderful hasbara fruit for their American supporters, Jewish and otherwise. If the choice is letting a few thousand lunatic fundamentalists dictate Middle Eastern policy for the world or let 'em figure it out after a pullout, well?

[Irtidad]

Hmm, I'm only mildly satisfied with his answer here. I wish he'd be more concrete, such as how to deal with the fact that there are almost 500,000 Israeli settlers in the Occupied Territories. While Chomsky would correctly point out that Israel illegally placed them there, the act of forcefully removing most if not all of them wouldn't go without consequence.

[Irtidad]

Actually I should qualify, Israel *continues* to place them there illegally, as the government gives great incentives for Israeli citizens (and those to become citizens through aliyah) to live in the Occupied Territories (now excluding Gaza).

[mix234]

If I remember correctly, Chomsky pointed out that one way to solve the issue of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories is to offer incentives to the settlers to move back to Israel. Another way is to warn the settlers that Israel would no longer use its military to protect the settlers, or aid their expansions. I think the two strategies combined would probably work pretty well without forcefully removing the settlers.

[Capitalocracy]

considering the amount of money being spent on weapons to fight this war, you could give them a pretty convincing incentive and still save money in the end.

[Irtidad]

About 80% of the settlers go primarily for financial reasons, and about 20% primarily for ideological and/or religious reasons. So Israel certainly can and should use incentives to remove its settler population from the OT. But 20% of 500,000 is 100,000, which is still a lot of people to forcefully remove. But I guess it's not like Israel's never forcefully removed people... particularly when they aren't Israelis.

[tarnopol]

Those who can be incentivized will leave. Those who want to stay for their own reasons are free to do so, as per mix234's accurate citation of Chomsky's proposal. No need to forcefully remove the settlers, whose swagger will mostly disappear when the fourth largest military on earth packs up and goes home.

[Irtidad]

Withdrawing protection doesn't make them "free" to do anything. There would be a massive uproar within Israel for not protecting the lives of its citizens, even if they are illegally placed.

[tarnopol]

Oh, well. There should be massive uproar now over the illegal placement. Somehow, in other conflicts accommodations have been found.

As the process moved forward -- toward a two-state solution -- pressure would be brought to bear by the majority of Israelis, including those I know, to stop using massive amounts of taxes to subsidize an illegal settler movement run by lunatics, most of whom don't even serve in the army. For "moral" reasons. So, bottom line: they're free to stay under the Pals.