I don’t know what Hillary Clinton has been drinking since she arrived in Israel for a visit with Bibi Netanyahu. But whatever it is it did the trick and she’s dutifully sung the praises of Israel’s rightist government:
Speaking at a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Saturday, Clinton said Israel is putting significant limits on settlement activity.
“What the prime minister has offered in specifics on restraints on a policy of settlements … is unprecedented,” she said.
…Clinton made it clear that she wasn’t pleased with Israeli settlement construction but that it was no reason to hold up talks.
“There are always demands made in any negotiation that are not going to be fully realized,” she said.
Clinton also agreed with a statement by Netanyahu that Palestinians had never demanded a settlement freeze in the past as a condition for sitting down with Israel.
Hillary Clinton, ever since she was New York’s junior senator, was a faithful sister to whatever Israeli government was in power. She even sang the praises of the Separation Wall and had herself pictured in front of it. That’s one of the reason I could never support her presidential candidacy and that I worried when she became secretary of state. Though I since have been convinced that Obama exercises enough control over administration policy and frowns on freelancing, Clinton’s performance today was disappointing. Can the Obama administration really believe Bibi is doing anything remotely “unprecedented” when it comes to a settlement freeze? Or is Hillary playing good cop to Obama’s bad? One wonders though, even being a good cop, whether her praise has to be so effusive and divorced from political reality?
Not only does it appear that Clinton and perhaps the Obama administration have abandoned the attempt for a settlement freeze, it also appears Clinton has taken Bibi’s side in demanding Israel be allowed to complete 3,000 units currently under construction. Yet another Clinton cave to Israel.
It’s rich that Israel is trying to claim that the Palestinian demand for a settlement freeze as a precondition for talks is somehow not cricket. What does that say about Israel’s never before advanced demand that the Palestinians accept Israel’s demand to be recognized as a Jewish state? At least the Palestinians are only asking for what every U.S. president has demanded of Israel for decades. No U.S. president of Israeli PM has ever made the demand that Bibi has as a precondition for talks.
It’s more a question of what Clinton has been smoking. No question she inhaled.
Extremely disappointing, no question. If these are concessions, I would hate to see obstructionism.
Considering that this is following that rather rigorous Pakistan trip, maybe she’s on mental auto-pilot at this point. Either way, it’s tremendously embarrassing for the Obama Administration to be backpedaling at this point.
Backpedaling at this point? Obama caved on this weeks ago.
“Backpedaling” is a process in motion. I never said the Obama Administration started it yesterday.
Assaf Oron says
Here’s a wild guess….. Joementum !!!
(my take on this fiasco, tomorrow at DKos)
Clinton praises Bib’is unprecedented (=non-existent) concessions and on a day later Bibi’s foreign minister speaks about pursuing an interim agreement with the Palestinians (= nothing) as the only solution now. Shows the scheme of the game.
One thing is clear that USA, not Israel, will loose its face completely in this absurd process. Surely this Israel’s superior ability to lead USA’s new government’s policy and make US representatives look like powerless idiots has been noticed around the world.
One thing Clinton could have demanded is that Israel gives at once 60.000 building permits to Palestinians for the West Bank and East Jerusalem to “compensate” those 3.000 settlement permits.
What concessions was she talking about? Hasn’t she been paying attention? Netanyahu refuses to budge re: the settlement freeze and has conceded absolutely nothing. As in the past, Israel is doing the old bait-and-switch by removing a few checkpoints in the West Bank and calling them “concessions.” It’s obvious Hillary has been tokin’ on the ol’ wacky weed. The tail is once again wagging the dog; nothing new about that. I have lost all faith in this administration’s intentions to pursue a fair and equitable settlement; Hillary is so out of touch on the reality of the settlement issue that she makes Condoleezza Rice look sharp.
It is absolutely required of Israel to make steep concessions; their occupation and building of settlements is facially illegal. The fact that there hasn’t been a third Intifada is a huge Palestinian concession.
Rupa Shah says
“What the prime minister has offered in specifics on restraints on a policy of settlements … is unprecedented,”
When I watched this on C-SPAN this morning, I wondered what kind of a joke was this? It would be funny if it was not so outrageous a statement and a lie! There is no drinking or smoking involved. This is plain gutlessness and capitulation by the administration to…….some of us at least, can guess, to whom!
Obama has betrayed those of us who saw him as a fortress against Israeli/AIPAC crime and oppression. As he has reversed on the settlement freeze, so I reverse on him. He has failed – and his reversal is Exhibit A to the assertion that Israeli/AIPAC do exercise controlling influence over US Near East policy.
TimothyL, if you had seen Obama’s 2008 speech at the AIPAC convention (look for it on YouTube), you would have seen it was even more fawning and obsequious than Hillary’s. There was never any reason to hope for “change” – all that has changed is that now there is an even more fascist government in place in Israel, and a milquetoast in the White House. It sure didn’t take much to slap Obama down, did it? He’s been put in his place and now is marching in pro-Zionist lockstep like a good Christian soldier.
On what evidence did you see him as a fortress against Israeli/AIPAC crime and oppression? Was it his headlong rush to grovel at AIPAC’s feet the moment he knew he had the nomination secured? Was it the way he threw Rashid Khalidi under the bus? Or was it, perhaps, his refusal to utter a syllable about the collection of Israeli atrocities known as Operation Cast Lead?
I will never understand how it is that so many otherwise intelligent and aware people have deceived themselves into believing that Obama is any different than any other U.S. President in regard to Israel in particular and the Middle East in particular.
Richard Silverstein says
Can we call an adjournment of the Obama pie in the face sniggering? This post was critical of Hillary Clinton, who made these comments. Barack Obama did not make them. So let’s keep our aim on the real target.
Obama could not criticize Cast Lead as president elect (but without the presidency fully his). There was another president at the time and criticizing Gaza would’ve meant criticizing U.S. policy. This would’ve been unprecedented. And I say this as someone who myself criticized him for his silence. But unlike you, I understood the reason for it w/o approving of it.
If anyone is sniggering, it is not I. And surely whatever Hillary Clinton said is a reflection of the policy of the administration she serves, therefore it is as if Obama said those things, is it not?
As for understanding Obama’s reason for not saying anything about the collection of Israeli atrocities that took place in December and January, OK, fine. And what legitimate reason is there for him to go along with the attempts to quash the Goldstone report?
Richard Silverstein says
You know I’m not defending Obama for his treatment of Goldstone. Just the opposite. And no, I don’t think Hillary always speaks for Obama in every word or statement she makes. Or if she does, I don’t believe that Hillary’s statements reflect the entirety of Obama’s views on these issues.
I’m not going to defend Obama on this. But I’m also not going to give up on him yet as so many other readers have.
Of course I understand that you are not defending Obama’s reaction to Goldstone. I was trying to point out that whereas one could make a legitimate argument for his remaining silent on the carnage in Gaza before he was inaugurated, it is difficult to square his rejection of the Goldstone report and its recommendations with an assumption that he might be an “honest broker”.
The Secretary of State is not free to make decisions or to act independently of the administration (s)he serves. The Secretary of State’s job is, in large measure, to voice and implement the foreign policy of the administration. Obama is her boss, and he, not she, has the final word on policy and on the public positions she will take. A Secretary of State who publicly strays too far from the administration’s policy usually doesn’t keep her/his job for very much longer.
Unlike you and so many hopeful others, I have never had any illusions about Obama vis a vis Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Iran, or military policy in general. His personnel choices as a candidate, and even moreso as President are very telling, and equally telling have been his own statements, and his actions both during the campaign and afterward. I have seen few surprises so far, least of all his choice of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. As candidates there was not a whit of significant difference between their foreign and military policy positions.
I mostly agree with Shirin here, though I will say there were moments in early 2009 when I thought maybe Obama was different. He picked George Mitchell, which IIRC even Noam Chomsky thought was a decent choice. (I might be wrong about that, but anyway, many people sympathetic to Palestinians thought Mitchell was a good choice.) And the Cairo speech–parts of it made me gag, but there was at least a firm stand on stopping more settlement building.
But he’s caved in to the Lobby, or all the evidence currently seems to point that way. And no, it’s not surprising–I was more surprised for a few months when I thought there was a good chance he was different.
Obama is Hillary’s boss. She is representing the Obama administration and its foreign policy goals, which are becoming clearer every day as regards Israel/Palestine. The agenda here seems to be to allow Israel to have its cake and eat it too. Common sense doesn’t seem to cross Obama/Hillary’s mind here; we cannot have discussions about creating a Palestinian state while thousands of Jewish settlements are still being illegally built in the West Bank and east Jerusalem. It is quite simple. Abbas is right; there can be no peace talks until the settlement building stops.
Hillary is indeed backpedaling for the second time, petting and stroking the Israelis, begging them to please be nice. “You don’t want to stop building settlements, well, that’s ok, just tell me you’re thinking about slowing them down a little, oh! that’s an unprecedented concession!”
Richard Silverstein says
NPR & AP are reporting that at the Arab foreign ministers’ summit in Morocco today she’s backpedaled on her Jerusalem statements:
Let me make clear, I’m offering no support for Clinton whatsoever. She should’ve recognized how stupid the Jerusalem remarks would appear & how much it would discredit U.S. efforts in the Arab world. That she made them reflects poorly on her & on whoever in the administration approved them (if anyone did). But she did modify them for what that’s worth (not much, but at least a kopek’s worth of difference).
Somehow I do not find it encouraging that Hillary spoke one way in Israel and another in Morocco among the Arab foreign ministers. Aside from the fact that it shows a lack of principle in the positions she expressed, it reveals an appalling lack of foresight.
Richard Silverstein says
Do you remember the old hasbara line about how Arafat or Sadaat or Assad or whoever…says one thing in English for the foreign audience & another thing entirely in Arabic to the home audience? One could be forgiven for remembering that smear in this case. And it actually would be more justified to compare this situation to that old smear.
It just shows that anyone can play that game.
Very, very true.
As a die-hard Hillary Clinton supporter I have to say I was stunned when I heard her press conference. I run a blog devoted to her foreign policy and didn’t even feel like I could post anything yesterday it was so depressing (I’ve since gotten over that today).
I’ve noticed that many in the blogosphere are wondering if Hillary has “gone rogue” on this, and I can’t help but think not in terms of overall policy, however she clearly puts her own stamp on things- she was overly-effusive with respect to Israel – a marked contrast to her comments with or about the PA and Abbas.
The irony in all of this is the US has effectively played right into Bibi and Hamas’ hands- between pressuring Abbas to table the Goldstone Report (a HUGE concession on the part of the Palestinians which Clinton did not give them credit for publicly) and now this, Abbas has been weakened to the point where he’s unlikely to politically survive this. And who has been strengthened by the US and Israel throwing Abbas under the bus? Hamas- the group that neither Israel or the US will sit down with.
In other words, the US & Israel have effectively ensured that meaningful negotiations will not take place now or in the foreseeable future.
You misinterpret Hamas, having obviously fallen for the Zionist propaganda that they are nothing but a terrorist organization. You need to look at the history of Hamas’ behavior, and you will see that it was always in reaction to Israel’s criminal behavior.
The ostracism of Hamas is the intent of the Israeli government precisely because doing so divides the Palestinian people and thereby prevents them from ever overcoming the occupation. The PA, of whom Abbas is a loyal quisling, is the one who plays into Israel’s hands because it realizes that to form a coalition with Hamas will mean a death sentence for Fatah and the power (and perks) it enjoys. As long as Abbas plays along for the most part (while making the obligatory noises of protest about Netanyahu’s refusal to stop building settlements) it effectively keeps Hamas away from obtaining legitimacy and thereby a place at the negotiation table.
There was more than one reason Abbas tabled the Goldstone report. He depends so much on Israeli favoritism that to do otherwise would have cost him everything, and thereby his political rivals, Hamas, would gain strength. It has backfired on him now. By insisting on the elections, however, he will regain it, especially if Hamas is foolish enough to boycott them. He’s gambling and most likely will win. Once again, Hamas will be the loser and will continue to be refused recognition in this hypocritical game.
I didn’t misrepresent Hamas with respect to whether or not they are a terrorist organization, I merely stated what the US position is- i.e that the US (and Israel) will refuse to sit down with Hamas.
That said, your point about the Goldstone report and Abbas are good points which I didn’t consider. I don’t really understand though how you reach the conclusion that Abbas will come out on top in all of this- hasn’t he been severely weakened by capitulating to the US and Israel and getting nothing in return? That, to me, would seem to strengthen Hamas.
He will come out on top because he is the incumbent, backed by Israel, and has managed to manipulate Hamas into boycotting the election. The only Palestinians who will go to the polls now are the Fatahs in the West Bank, who will vote for Abbas simply because he is the only candidate they have. Hamas has refused to participate in the elections, remember? This will not strengthen them, and that is why their move is foolish.
Richard Silverstein says
Indeed, very true. And when negotiations DO take place they will have to include Hamas either overtly or de facto.
i am surprised that you are surprised. Not because I expect you to analyse correctly the situation, but because I spelled it out for you on this board already two weeks ago:
October 17, 2009 at 12:26 AM
“I think the reason you are unaware of the developments that have been taking place since the freezomania is that you are so blinded by your views of Netanyahu, that you thought of his two-state speech as mere theorizing, rather than recognizing it as a counter-offer to Abbas-Obama’s tiny demand of a freeze.”
If the West Bank is turned into swiss cheese by incessant settlement building, what is left of a two-state solution goes right out the window. This is what Netanyahu wants. If he stalls long enough and does not stop the settlement building, there will be nothing left to make a Palestinian state with. Half a million Jewish settlers are already in the West Bank, with plans to build many thousands more settlements. The settlers are causing problems for the Palestinians (theft, assault, etc.) every day. It is not a freezeomania, silvia, not if you’re a Palestinian.
Mary, the West Bank is already a swiss cheese. It is just too late. Israel has relegated the two-state solution to the dustbin of history by its own colonization policies that began less than a month after the end of the 1967 war with the Alon Plan. The only decent option left now is a single state in all of historic Palestine, which sooner or later will have to cease being The Jewish State, and be a truly democratic state for all its citizens. The only question is how that will happen, and how long it will take.
I think you’re right, but the zionists will never go for that, so they’ll just ramp up the ethnic cleansing.
Actually, I’ve come to recognize that Obama and Hillary Clinton are quite similar, politically. True, Obama is a hipper personality and a better speaker, but I’d say their world-views pretty much overlap. I unfortunately drank the Obama Kool-Aid like a lot of progressive liberal Democrats.
In some ways Obama is worse than Hillary, because at least in some respects, Hillary is more of a natural fighter. Now if some freakish Frankenstein scientist could just exhume and resurrect Franklin Roosevelt, that would be something. You listen to old FDR speeches and it’s like entering another universe compared to these mindless, infinitely cowardly dolts that ‘lead’ us today. The distance between Roosevelt and Obama is almost as great as the distance between Immanuel Kant and Jeffrey Goldberg.
The horror!, the horror!. Compliments for your prediction, Richard. My prediction now: Israel will happen a serious attack some time before December 10th, when Obama receives his Nobel Peace prize. On the eve of Dec 10, there will be a off-newscamera killing of Palestinians (like: 9/11: 10 P’s killed, which was an impressive number these days; like: on 4-nov 2008, when Obama became a chosen).
It’s not the drinking, it’s the music, see here: http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/2009/11/neanyahu-and-clinton-perform-mir-bist.html
Last month I returned from spending the High Holy Days in Israel, mainly in the West Bank where my 35 relatives live. Since I am able to travel freely in the West Bank, I can assure you that Bibi’s “concession” of limiting settlement growth to the 3000 existing structures aleady started and approved is pure fiction.
New construction is going on everywhere and NO ONE is paying the least bit attention to getting permits. In fact I was in Kiryat Arba and heard Ariel Atias, current Housing Minister tell the town council not to worry about their new construction that has no approvals. When the US attention disapates, we’ll retroactively approve it like we always do.
He further stated that the consensus of the Cabinet is there will be no final peace agreement in the nest 10 years so let the building continue. I have come away from my 53rd trip to Israel more discouraged than ever. I got a number of telephone calls today from my settler relatives all crowing about Clinton’s statement means the US has totally capitulated to Netanyahu and thus they can continue to expand their settlements to cut the west bank into 4 Palestinian “reservations”.
The Alon plan coming to fruition more than four decades later.
When I was a little girl I had a recurring nightmare. I would be lying in bed in a darkened room with the television on. The program was frightening, a woman wielding a knife. In my dream I would get up to change the channel but the same scene was on every channel. I would turn off the tv but it wouldn’t turn off. I would unplug the tv but it remained on.
My mind works funny sometimes, things flash into it I guess out of the same area of my brain that stores similar information. Yesterday when googling news for Israel/Palestine, no matter what, Clinton kept coming up, article after article, Clinton praises Netanyahu and his supposed settlement “whatever”. It reminded me of my nightmare, I couldn’t turn it off, Clinton praises Netanyahu,
Clinton praises Netanyahu, Clinton praises Netanyahu………….
This is a nightmare, a nightmare for the Palestinian people and for us as Americans whose leaders simply cannot stop raising the knife against their rights. If we as Americans hold the values of our Declaration of Independence to be sacred, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”
This America, holds true for ALL mankind, including Palestinians. Our knee jerk support of Israel in all they do is NOT what we as a nation have declared as our values.
We need to take those values back, we need to APPLY our stated values, otherwise, declare them nul and void because we are a nation of hypocrite leaders.
I don’t think there will ever be a peace agreement; Israel will not negotiate peace because by doing so, it will have to stop grabbing land. The purpose of zionism is to shove out the Palestinians, both Muslim and Christian, and create a Jewish state. They’ve never lost sight of that goal.
The rest of the world is getting tired of it, though. The Goldstone report brought to the forefront the scale of violence and abuse that has been inflicted on the Palestinian people for many years under this filthy occupation. I think it will not be the duplicitous Hillary Clintons, or Obamas, and certainly not the Liebermans and Netanyahus who will make peace. It looks to me that the time is coming nearer when a settlement will be imposed upon Israel/Palestine by an outside body, such as the UN, and the whole thing will be surrounded by international peacekeeping troops for the next 50 years. At this point, I’m almost willing to accept that because I am sick and tired of all the death and destruction, the apartheid, and the day to day abuse Palestinians suffer at the hands of the Israelis.
I think it depends on how effectively the West Bank Palestinians can push back, violently or not. If they can force Israel to some type of de facto standstill (like Hamas has done in Gaza, although the blockade is still up), then they can create boundaries beyond which Israel can not or will not cross (not to mention that they’ll scare off most of the people who do end up living in the settlements – people who want cheap, subsidized housing). Those boundaries might be where they could carve out some type of state.
But if they can’t (namely, if the Israeli apartheid in the West Bank has gotten so effective that they can’t mobilize to any good degree), then odds are that they and Israel will end up in some type of one-state result. Certainly the Israelis are creating that, largely because the government seems to be extremely short-sighted.
I can’t see that happening. There’s really no state that could conquer Israel without taking heavy casualties from its arsenal (particularly nuclear arsenal) or without simply wiping it out with nukes. Economic sanctions are possible, but usually flawed and full of holes.
The PA would never cross the Israeli government, in fact, they are an arm of the Israeli government. They are not capable of pushing back, and even if they were, to what effect? They’ve had to play the game a long time just to have some checkpoints removed. If they implement another intifidad, then Palestine will be nothing more than two ghettoes, not just one.
I still think the settlement will be imposed upon them from outside, it will be shaky, but hopefully it will stop Israel’s violence against Palestinians, as well as the incessant settlement building.
Israel has effectively prevented the Palestinians from having a single, strong voice. They’ve pulled the teeth from Fatah and relegated Hamas to persona non grata.
I wasn’t talking about the PA.
No, I was not talking about “conquering” Israel, but because it is a UN member and possibly someday the UN will have enough strength to impose its will in a combination of sanctions and diplomacy to non-violently impose a settlement. This is not a new concept and I am surprised you misunderstood my meaning.
You seem to be implying that there should be a third Intifada. Not only will that not work, but it is way past time for the violence to end, don’t you think? Hasn’t Israel murdered enough civilians already?
Are you seriously suggesting that the Arabs’ demand that Israel stop building on Israeli land is somehow more legitimate than Israel’s demand that their “peace partners” deign to recognize their very existence? One side is asking a sovereign state not to expand communities within her borders, and the other side is asking merely to be recognized. If the Arabs want a Judenrein Judea and Samaria, they could at least make the symbolic gesture and acknowledge’s Israel’s right to exist.
As for those of you who believe that Hamas is or ever will be interested in a two-state solution, I believe that you are sorely mistaken. Has everyone forgotten about the rockets they’ve been launching into southern Israel? That does not sound like the actions of an organization that wants constructive dialogue. (And for those who claim that Hamas only fires rockets to try and lift Israel’s “blockade:” would Israel need to limit imports to Gaza if Hamas weren’t firing rockets at Israeli civilians?)
Richard Silverstein says
Lawdie, we got a real hasbaranik tonight; or are you a settler? East Jerusalem is within Israel’s borders? Acc. to whom? The Palestinians? No. International law? No. Acc. to the Israeli Occupation? Ah, yes.
BTW, the PLO has already recognized Israel’s existence all the way back in 1988. Didn’t you get the memo?
No, the PA has already announced that settlers are welcome to stay as long as they accept Palestinian sovereignty and citizenship.
There’s a ceasefire & Hamas hasn’t launched rockets into Israel since the last war. In fact, Hamas is preventing other militants fr. launching rockets in order to maintain the ceasefire.
The siege began not because of a rocket barrage but because Hamas won the 2006 elections. The siege is a political, not a military act.
Hamas has indicated that they are interested in a long term ceasefire under the condition that the blockade of Gaza is lifted, and that they would agree to any peace agreement the Palestinian people agreed to by referendum.
Do they sound like foaming at the mouth terrorists to you?
Hillary completely made a fool of herself, showing her clumsy political posturing for the nonsense it is. “I may have said that, but if I did say it, I didn’t mean what it sounded like, I actually meant something else….” She is just as awkward and clueless as Condi Rice. Obama should have chosen a more experienced person for the job. In any case, she has just proven once again that the US is no honest broker.
I suspect he’s doing what many Israel apologists do, and conflating the Palestinians with “The Arabs” as if “The Arabs” are one giant homogenous mass.
As for the above, I have my doubts. I suspect what would happen is that you’d see something unpleasant like the Pakistan-India partition, with the settlers and their ilk fleeing into Israel proper, and a number of Israeli Arabs being pushed out into the new Palestine.
“I suspect he’s doing what many Israel apologists do, and conflating the Palestinians with “The Arabs” as if “The Arabs” are one giant homogenous mass.”
It is unclear what you are implying about “The Arabs”, unless all you are doing is pointing out that Arabs are as diverse in their views, etc. as any other human group. If that is all it is, then OK, I agree completely. If there is more to it, would you kindly clarify?
“I suspect what would happen is that you’d see something unpleasant like the Pakistan-India partition, with the settlers and their ilk fleeing into Israel proper, and a number of Israeli Arabs being pushed out into the new Palestine.”
First, please be aware that most Palestinians who are citizens of Israel do not identify as “Israeli Arabs” and do not appreciate the term on several levels. Second, certainly many Israeli Jews would love to find a way to divest Israel of the non-Jewish Palestinian segment of the population. One of the means of achieving this as part of the two-state solution would be to conveniently exchange the major illegal colonies for territory inside the Green Line that is populated mainly by Palestinians. Lovely shining example of democratic principles at work in The Only Democracy In The Middle East™, no?
If I were an Arab living in Israel, I would identify myself as a Palestinian, not an Israeli. It is a matter of historical identity.
Israel is counting on annexing all the territory on which it builds settlements, and it will fight tooth and nail to do so simply because it needs those big Jewish populations to balance its demographics. It is insistent upon being a “Jewish state”, and its population is about to tip over into an Arab majority within the next few years.
I know this seems to be going off topic again, but the importance of the settlement issue cannot be overestimated, despite the zionists’ recent touting of a “survey” they claimed was conducted in the West Bank which claims the Palestinians don’t care about the settlements, only about having jobs and security. I find it hard to believe that the Palestinians are actually acquiescing to Israel’s continued land theft and ethnic cleansing, and the Palestinians I know certainly do not concur with this “survey.”
Clinton’s backpedaling was actually amusing, but even more pathetic. It just shows that she doesn’t know what she’s doing. Babbling niceties is not diplomacy.
That’s exactly what I’m doing, and pointing out that the view often held by folks such as Bryan – that the arabic populations around Israel are some type of faceless horde – is nonsense.
I am aware of it, but it’s a useful distinguishing point between them and the West Bank/Gaza Palestinians, and in any case they are Israeli citizens.
So the Palestinians within Israel would prefer to stay in Israel as opposed to being part of an actual Palestinian state? Then calling them “Palestinians” is frankly misleading.
If we do somehow end up with a two-state solution, and the relevant Palestinian negotiators agree to take the areas in question, I don’t see what the problem is (particularly if the Palestinian state starts driving out the settlers). It’s not as if this isn’t something that hasn’t been done before – when the Jordanians gave up the West Bank, they stripped the Palestinians there of Jordanian citizenship.