14 thoughts on “As Bibi Readies for Trump Summit, He Dumps Two-States for “State-Minus” – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. The Palestinians will be bit players in any peace deal, because they have nothing to bring to the table.

    Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Israel are the major players.
    Saudi Arabia will bankroll the Palestinian State, and Egypt will give the Palestinians a great deal of land in the Northern Sinai. The Northern Sinai, with it’s ongoing ISIS inspired rebellion, is a thorn in Egypt’s side and Egypt would be only to happy to get rid of it. Saudi Arabia would gain some much needed prestige for the achievement of handing to the Palestinians, their desideratum.

    1. @Seamus Ignoramus: Sorry, just couldn’t help myself.

      It’s presumptuous idiocy like yours that gets so many of the Israeli & U.S. foreign policy elites into so much trouble. Palestinians ARE major players in the one & only way in which that is important: determining their own National fate. They will not permit jackasses like you to dimiss it or bargain it away on their own behalf. Much as you would wish it otherwise.

      Saudi Arabia & Egypt are bit players & increasingly irrelevant in the Arab world. Palestine doesn’t need Saudi 30 pieces of silver to betray the Palestinian cause.

      The northern Sinai has a local native Bedouin insurgency fueled by the brutality & corruption of the central state. It will never get rid of the insurgency because it will continue as long as the corrupt military junta continues–the very one you seem to admire.

      Saudis will never have ‘prestige’ for anything, except cruelty & corruption. Once the oil is gone or the world switches to renewables, they’re toast, & rightly so.

    2. “The Palestinians will be bit players in any peace deal, because they have nothing to bring to the table.”
      It is this kind of attitude that will destroy any standing an respect that Israel still has.

  2. Richard, Bibi (and even the Zionist left (e.g. Avoda)) position on state-minus isn’t entirely new. They all advocate a demilitarized Palestinian state (with no heavy weapons, limited to light infantry) for the past 30+ years.
    See for instance here –
    “The Beilin-Abu Mazen plan envisaged an independent but demilitarized Palestinian state covering 90 to 95 percent of the West Bank and Gaza with a capital in Abu Dis, just outside the municipal boundary of Jerusalem as defined by Israel.”

    What is somewhat new is Bibi (internally at least) calling this a “State minus”. Up until now, the bargaining position has been to call this less than a state a full-fledged state in name, while imposing all these limits.

    But obviously – a state which cannot defend itself (as it has no heavy weapons and is not alowed to have them, etc.) – is a bit less than a state (though there are some examples of small modern protectorate states such as this).

    1. @ lepxii: I’ve never said that Likud & Labor are much different. But to call Labor “left” of any sort is ridiculous & an insult to the word. Potentially Meretz is the “Zionist left.” But not Labor. So don’t ever use the term “left in connection with Labor.

      Further, because Labor & Likud both agree that Palestinians should be offered a mess of porridge in place of their actual inheritance that means what, precisely?? That I should realize that this is all the Palestinians will or should ever get? That because a Palestinian toadie & washed up Labor hack who stopped being relevant a decade ago agreed on a peace deal, that this is what will or should happen in the end? You can forget that.

      As for the various plans Israeli parties would support: Bibi essentially wants to retain all major settlement blocs AND the Jordan Valley. This was never envisioned in any Labor plan.

      The eventual Palestinian state will either have an army or a security force functioning as one; and if it won’t then it will need international forces acting to prevent Israel from encroaching on Palestinian territory. It must have one or the other. Anything less would never fly, nor should it.

    1. @ dickerson3870: This may be the only example of Elliott Abrams actually telling the truth & being penalized for it. Though I’m torn about the outcome: having Trump nominate to a senior position someone who is a convicted felon is pretty delicious.

        1. @ Seamus: Perhaps I should’ve said someone who deserves to be a convicted felon & who belongs in a federal prison, rather than a plush State Dept office. But “convicted criminal” is good enough for me.

          1. “Reagan Administration officials in previous testimony to Congress have not included Mr. Abrams among those who knew about the diversion of profits from the Iran arms sales to help the contras and there is no evidence that he was aware of the transfer of funds until it was publicly disclosed in November 1986.”
            “Mr. Abrams… has insisted that he never knowingly misled Congress. But in court, Mr. Abrams admitted that he had unlawfully kept information from two Congressional committees in the fall of 1986 when he testified about his knowledge of the secret contra supply network and about his role in soliciting a $10 milllion contribution for the contras from the Sultan of Brunei ”

  3. “A state minus” simply refers to autonomy, which was the deal the Likud was talking about (but never wanted to do anything about) since Begin signed the Kemp-David accord. And let not forget that this was the agrrement sponsored by the USA. Of course, thngs gradually with the Likud starting to be opened to it only when Sharon became prime minister.

    and BTW, I can think of more than one people/nation that have autonomy and not an independent state even though they would have wanted one, Catalonia for example.

    1. @Amico: No, the U.S. does not support “autonomy.” It has supported full statehood at least since 1993, if not earlier. Autonomy is a non starter.

      Catalonia is a ludicrous example since Catalonians are citizens of Spain who seek autonomy or independence from it. Palestinians are “citizens” of a bantustan called the PA. They are seeking autonomy from no one. They seek full statehood either through their own Palestinian state or through a unitary state.

      1. I said the USA supported autonomy at the time. Those days, the view of the USA were similar to those of Bibi today. My point is that its nothing new.
        How is Catalonia a “ludicrous” example? Both want independence from the state the currently run their lives.

        1. @Amico: I don’t believe the U.S. ever supported autonomy. If it did, a 30 yr old policy is irrelevant to today. Israel’s policies are also impossibly out of date & irrelevant today, which is precisely the problem.

          Palestinians have no state. Catalonians do. Palestinians have no citizenship. Catalonians do. Palestinians were expelled from Israel. Catalonians never were expelled from Spain.

          No further comments for you in this thread.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *