What has Kristol ever said or done to warrant the attention his views receive? He campaigned vigorously for the Iraq war and endorsed Sarah Palin. As Walt states, yes, his previous blunders should recuse people from listening to him again. Does it take much to question why it's not a good idea to make foreign policy choices based 2000 year old scripture, in a nation that separates church and state?

Positions and arguments should be assessed on their own merits, not based on the identity of the person advancing them.

It raises the question -- Why does a Harvard professor resort to these obvious logical fallacies while attempting to make his case? Is it because he realizes any substantive argument he would make is unconvincing? Laziness? Something else?

Are you really insinuating that a person's past decisions should not affect how they're listened to in the future? If someone is so blatantly wrong and championed a cause so categorically flawed (that led to thousands and thousands of deaths), that any future convictions they have shouldn't be looked at with a grain of salt? That goes in the face of everything logical.

Yes, that is what I am saying. It's not that controversial really - If presented with a proposal or argument or whatever, judge it on its merits. If you want to argue against it, tell us why you disagree.

Nobody is telling you that you can't oppose it simply based on who is advancing it, only that this reason isn't a very compelling argument. It also demonstrates a lack of the intellectual rigor that one would expect from a Harvard professor.

That goes in the face of everything logical.

Actually, no. You are confusing human nature with logic. Steve knows that people react to emotional or irrational arguments and so is making one here. His intent, like with most of his writing on this subject, is not to analyze but to sway people.

There are plenty of settlers that positively insist on staying and they have enormous, decisive political power. The issue is not about the safety of the withdrawal.

The Palestinians have certain demands ('67 borders with only 1-2 % changes, non-Jewish parts of East Jerusalem, some symbolic acknowledgement of the right of return, even if it's not executed). They believe that it's backed up by international law and wont make compromises on that. Israel, doesnt accept those conditions. So there is no agreement and things look like they could continue until the day that Palestinians are an absolute majority. At that point it can be called full-fledged Apartheid.

So let's discuss this question, and project the current situation into the future. Is it possible that even if Palestinians are an absolute majority, that STILL the occupation continues, and that Israel simply denies that there is real Apartheid, and get away with it? That BDS is attempted and just shot down, over and over again?

Is it possible that the narrative of Mearsheimer in the Palestine Institute could be defeated?

--> http://kanan48.wordpress.com/2010/04/30/the-future-of-palestine-by-john-j-mearsheimer/

Robert

OK. I want to say that that's not what was offered in 2000 and 2008, and learning this helped to alter my view. The Palestinians appear to be dead set on no more than about 2% exchanges. Camp David and Olmert's discussions involved about 6%. Olmert offered a deal to the Palestinians where they had to agree to a deal before the maps were revealed to them. The Palestinians rejected this, and I don't think that I disagree with them. I no longer think that the Palestinians are as nuts as I used to. There is a logic to their side.

Israel is 21% Arab population. Arabs serve in the Kenneset, the army (druze and bedouin arabs), have full voting rights, and go to Israeli universities. The muslim arabs get all the benefits of citizenship without even having to do national service or go to the army like the rest of society. If anything, they are privileged to star their lives 3 years earlier and enter the work force earlier than all Jewish Israelis.

So, tell me, how many Jews will be citizens of the Palestinian state? These "settlements" couldn't be incorporated into the palestinian state somehow? The residents couldn't be given some type of living permits, even if not citizenship in "palestine." That is true apartheid. Again, ask why Israel can have a million arab citizens and Palestine cannot have a single Jewish resident.

Besides, what land is Israel "occupying?" In their cities, the palestinians have autonomy. The rest of the land (west bank and gaza) was part of a British Mandate. Then in 1948 it was "occupied" by Egypt and Jordan. In 1967 Israel took the land. Both Jordan and Egypt renounced any claims to these territories. There NEVER was a Palestinian state in those lands either. So, Israel is not "occupying" someone else's land. The palestinians want it, just like I want a nice vacation home in Marseilles.

Not to mention the palestinians want their own state, except when it comes to reaping the benefits from Israel. They want autonomy, but they want free access to Israel's markets, labor and otherwise. You can't have it both ways.

Finally, there was the UN partition plan. Accepted by the Jews and rejected by the Muslims. the muslims then declared war that cost Israel 1% of its entire population. The muslims then lost. Now they want everything back as if there was no war? Sorry, but there are consequences for waging war. Especially when you lose. This no nation, violent, non-entity should be happy to get whatever anyone is willing to give them.

Oh, and speaking of rights and apartheid. Tell me, what rights do Jews have to become citizens and own land in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc. Saudi Arabia was not even allowing Jewish contractors into its country to build infrastructure for themselves!

Vilkssweden,

I think that the Palestinians under Abu Mazen have agreed to giving settlers Palestinian citizenship, and that one community has said that they would accept it.

Regarding comparisons with Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia, I don't go that route. Saudi Arabia and Jordan dont have voting rights (on the national level) for anybody. That called a dictatorship and they suffer the consequences in terms of living standard. People are equally oppressed under the dictatorship. However, the world community accepts dictatorship.

Democracies need to have equality across the population or the result is violence and instability (the US Confederacy, the South, Rhodesia, South Africa). So democracies like Israel and South Africa are rightly judged to a different standard and the world rejects "half-democracies" or Apartheid.

I think that the legality of Palestinian territory emerges from UN Resolution 242, which begins with "the inadmissability of territory occupied by war". The UN 242 also talks about a settlement with secure borders. Jordan, the belligerent country involved, is at peace with Israel for 16 years and has a good security relationship. So imagining a tank thrust into Israel, that everyone was worried about before 67, is now moot.

The real security issue involve terrorism and hand-to-hand combat, which is effectively guarded by the Wall. I'm a big supporter of the Wall, though it should be moved away from Palestinian land, it's a very good idea. Regarding rockets, even very short range rockets fly far enough that where you place the border is an irrelevant issue.

My conclusion from all this is that the Apartheid is a very serious issue for Israel. The Palestinian position is not a total mystery, but rather pretty predictable. Israel should come to negotiations and cut a deal like they mean it. Get security support from the US and NATO.

Allow settlers to stay and become Palestinian citizens, or move them out. Keep the Wall, and focus on weapons and defense that takes the new reality into account.

it's been deemed that the Israeli settlers will be uprooted. There have been a few informal ideas thrown out there by abu ala and mahmud abbas that they could have residency, but its typically outside the belt line of the mainstream negotiations. In addition, "residency" is a far cry from citizenship, which Israel granted its arab residents.

Finally the use of apartheid is a misnomer. Israeli citizens, arab, druze, bedouin, Jew, etc. have equal access and rights to everything. In fact, Israeli arabs frequently do not pay their taxes, water bills, electric bills, etc. and get away with it. They also don't have to serve like Jews, Druze Arabs, and Bedouin do, but still reap the benefits of the state. Again, this is far from apartheid.

In terms of the Palestinians, they are a seperate "people" so to speak. It's not apartheid that they have different rights, obligations, etc. This is especially so when they are governed by a totally separate entity. Which collects its own taxes, builds its own roads and infrastructure, and has its own police and universities. Tell me, how many Israelis go to Palestinian universities? Traverse PA roads? Go to palestinian hospitals? Compare that with the thousands of Palestinian arabs (non-citizens of Israel) who get routinely treated at Israeli hospitals (often at the Israeli tax-payer's expense), go to Israeli universities, and get services from Israel.

You could just as equally say that the US is an apartheid state, as we do not accord the same rights and privileges to Mexican citizens. However, this again, would be a misuse of the term.

South Africa was apartheid, because it divided its citizens based on race and ruled accordingly. Israel is a multi-racial state. It makes distinctions between citizens (be they druze, jewish, arab, muslim, black, white) and non-citizens (palestinians). This is the same as any state does.

Vilkssweden,

To be clear, I only consider the Territories to be open to the Apartheid charge. Israel itself has racial problems, but not of a different order than other countries.

I think that the Territories is Apartheid just by looking at it. I think that Occupation, over the course of 43 years, becomes Apartheid naturally. People are born who have known nothing but the separation rules that allow Israelis to live on a land, connected by roads that only they can drive on. Palestinians are ruled by a set of laws over which they have no representation. And this takes place in an otherwise democratic country. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck, and that duck is Apartheid. This will be specially true when the Palestinians become a majority. A minority population will restrict the rights of a majority, and that is also Apartheid, in my opinion.

The question is whether this line of thinking will lead to international outrage equivalent to that toward South Africa, and whether there will be serious boycotts and sanctions. Even if the Western world is tightly connected to Israel, such as Intel, Microsoft, Google, etc, those ties are reversible over time, like 10-20 years. But will the "looks like Apartheid" argument win the day?

Aurungzeb's remarks defy comprehension, but I hate when the word 'antisemite' gets thrown around. Saudis and other Arabs are also semites. There must be a better word, how about 'self-hating semite' or just simply 'moron'

and I hate when people say anti-semite is referring to Arabs. No. The fact is anti-semite was created in order to speak of Jews. Plain and simple. It is like saying Negro is not a bad word because it is simply saying Black in Spanish. We both nkow that calling a black man a Negro would be insulting, because of the past usage of the word.
Hence, when someone says you are anti-semetic, we know they are referring to Jews. The argument that they are self-hating-semites is beyond ridiculous.

Also, proof of Palestinian apartheid: While Arabs, Muslims, Druze and Bahai all live in Israel, with Israeli citizenship, East Jerusalem must get rid of all Jews? Why did it cause uproar when Israel said that Bethlhem was a sacred city to Jews as well? Why must Jerusalem be an international city? Why is Mecca not international? It is important to all Muslims, not just Saudis.

It's like if someone offers you a deal at the market and you pass it up. Realizing you can't get it cheaper, you come back a week later and decide you want to take that offer. Well, sorry you missed your chance. The item was sold to someone who wanted it more and bid higher.

In this case, the Palestinians walked away from a state. They thought they could take the whole thing and in the process waged a vicious war, that cost Israel 1% of its entire population and dragged in almost the entire arab. Now they want that deal back 60 years later. Well, sorry Palestinians just as you can't bring back the dead you caused by rejecting the partition plan, you can't have back the same deal you rejected.

Stoplights that lead to Jewish settlements and neighbourhoods stay green for an average of a minute and a half. In Palestinian areas, it's 20 seconds. One light in predominantly Arab East Jerusalem is green for less than 10 seconds.

In Palestinian areas of Jerusalem, roads are poorly maintained. They are narrow and bumpy, riddled with cracks and potholes. Street signs and sidewalks are almost non-existent.

Trash containers are usually communal and there are often too few to meet the needs of the neighbourhood. Pedestrians, forced to walk on the shoulder of the road, wade through garbage.

Jewish neighbourhoods and settlements, on the other hand, are neat and orderly. Sidewalks and traffic circles keep pedestrians safe; roads are well-marked, some with lit signs. Most buildings have a garbage bin and the streets are free of litter.

In one Jewish area, a grassy median is adorned with a rainbow assortment of decorative sculptures - metal children playing, kicking footballs, and riding bikes.

A former employee of the Jerusalem municipality confirmed that there is discrimination on a budgetary level. The sports department offers the most dramatic example - only 0.5 per cent of funds are allocated to Palestinian neighbourhoods. The other 99.5 per cent goes to Jewish areas.

Because over 90 per cent of Israel's Palestinians live in towns separate from the Jewish population, many Israeli Jews excuse away the differences between Arab and Jewish areas with a "poor municipality" argument.

But that reasoning falls apart in Jerusalem, a city striped with Palestinian and Jewish areas. And with Nof Tzion (Zion View), a Jewish settlement found smack in the centre of Jabel Mukhaber, a Palestinian neighbourhood, the differences are glaringly obvious.

"For years, [Jabel Mukhaber] didn't have a main street but just after they built Nof Tzion, [the municipality] built a very fine street with pavement and lights. But the road stops dead after Nof Tzion. It gets bumpy, dropping off into gravel, then dirt, for the Palestinians.

The "National Priority" programme gives economic incentives to government-selected areas. When the programme was introduced in 1998, 500 Jewish towns received national priority status. While Palestinians make up nearly 20 per cent of Israel's population, and half of the nation's poor, only four Arab villages were selected.

A classic example of how the allocation of government resources is discriminatory, grave inequalities can be found in the state-funded educational system as well.

When asked a young Israeli Jew, fresh from army service, simply remarked, it's a kind of psychological warfare. The idea is to get the Palestinians to leave.

I've been all over the country. Some arab village roads are nice. some jewish village roads suck. Its not some mysterious allocation of money based on sectarian reasons. Go and look instead of cutting and pasting from some partisan anti-Israel website.

Read, my dear, read! Read the article above before posting nonsense.

It says "East Jeruslem", under thje administration of the Jeruslem Municipality. Tax-paying palestines living in neighbourhoods in East Jeruslem DO NOT get the same benefits as 'other' neighbourhoods.

"that all those things were propositioned to Palestinians twice, in 2000 and 2008, and they said no both times."

A predictable and long debunked lie.

In 2000, the negotiations were held up at Taba (after Camp David) and ended prematurely by Barak AFTER both leaders stated they were on the verge of a political settlement.

The Olmert offer was grossly inadequate, as it did not include east Jerusalem, the refugees and settlement expansion.  Never mind the fact that Olmert had no chance in hell fo delivering on the offer anyway.

Isrsel is headed towards it's own undoing.

East Jerusalem also has a different municipality. It is not Israels fault that they spend their money on things that dont have to do with quality of living.
What you did was compare the East to the West. Go into any Arab town, and you will see the same thing more or less. The only difference is, that in Jerusalem, the difference between how the West likes to live and the East likes to live is viewed quicker and therefore it seems more extreme. If it was anywhere but Israel, it would be considered your typical rural town in Arabia.
And yet, you who always says that we shuold let them live how they want to live, if they want Sharia law, they can have it, etc. Now say that the way they live is bad. No, it is part of their culture.

Without occupation, there is no greater Israel.

 Israelis often give lip service to slogans like the 2 state solution and peace, but as we saw ofter Obama's Cairo speech, the minute Israel is asked to make steps towards either one, they rail against it. For Isral, talking about peace and a 2 state solution has become nothjign mroe than a stalling tactic to buy time while they steal more land.
FYI.

1. Suicide atatcks ended 3 years ago after Hamas decalred an end to suicide atatcks as a tactic.

2. Hamas held to a 4 month ceasfire from firing rockets in 2008 until Isral broke the ceasefire on the day of the presidential election.
Kapish?

Israel's leaders stayed plainly that they had no intention of honouting the Partition. In fact, Mrnachrn Begin, the terrorist leader later to become Israeli Prome Minister, stated that the partition was illegal.

I do love how Iaraeli apologists like to make up these rules on the fly.

" So in fact legally the situation has reverted to the British mandate, given by the League of Nations. Israel is recognized as the successor to the mandate. "

Please feel fee to link to the UN Resolution declaring this, or any ICJ ruling to that effect.

President Clinton, and others who participated, put the blame for the failure of the talks squarely on Arafat and the Palestinian negotiators. In 2001, Clinton told guests at a party at the Manhattan apartment of former UN ambassador Richard Holbrooke that Arafat called to bid him farewell three days before he left office. "You are a great man," Arafat said. "The hell I am," Clinton said he responded. "I'm a colossal failure, and you made me one."

"Why is Mecca not international? It is important to all Muslims, not just Saudis."

That was the original agreement was it not? No one was taking Saudi Arabia and giving half of it away to immigrants.

"Oh, wait they rent citizens of the US so why should America care?"

America is not bombing Mexican roads.

"Same with Arab villages in the West Bank and Gaza."

In Gaza, theu are being bombed. In the West Bank, they are demolished.

"If they arent Israeli citizens Israel has no legal duty to provide them with all the comforts of living in Israel, being Israeli citizens and upholding Israeli law."

Similarly, Israel has no legal right to bomb them or demolish them.

" However, as soon as you pass the Green line it is much more arid and brown. Why?"

Look at the map of the partition you fool. The land Israel was given was much more fertile.

Zionist propagandists like to pretend the peace process ended at Camp David, when in fact, talks continued at Taba, where it was Barak that ended the negotiations early becasue he claimed he had to focus on the elections.

At Taba, both leaders stated that they were on the verge of a settlement but needed more time.

"The hell I am," Clinton said he responded. "I'm a colossal failure, and you made me one."

Bear in mind that President Clinton, who dodged the draft for Vietnam, is also famous for saying he would take up arms for Israel and that his negotiating team are famous for behaving like Israel's lawyers, rather than impartial facilitators at Camp David.

that Clinton blamed arafat and his palestinian cronies for the failure of the peace plan. Diverting attention by whether or not you like Clinton makes no difference that he assigns blame squarely on the palesitnians.

Israel's foreign minister at the time, who was involved at Camp David said that, if he were a Palestinians, he too would have rejected Camp David.

So what Clinton had to say was simply hot air.

I don't mention suicide bombings because they ended after Hamas declared an end to them.

I don't mention Qassam rockets because there were none fired into Israel during the ceasefire which Israel them broke in 2008.

The only people using bulldozers to kill people are Israel, such as Rachel Corrie. I'm amazed you walked right into that trap.

Starting wars and massacaring civilians is not retaliatory defense of Israel. As Tzipi Livni said, a long ceasefire was not in Israel's strategic interests, meaning that Israel would rather have war than return stolen land.

"Once violence follows certain actors, by no mean the majority, but the trouble makers, the instant reaction is to keep them out and get them out. Hence the fence and the Arizona law."

The Nazi's used that argument to maintain the Warsaw Ghetto.

Palestinians launch what atatcks from Gaza? Maybe the odd bottle rocket that has no chance of hurting anyone unless it lands on them? Meanshile, Israel is destroying farms, shooting Palestinians that getwithin 300m of the border and routinely bombing Gaza.

"The PA police have been doing good though in arresting terrorists and clamping down."

Actualy,m Hamas were doing the same thing during the 2008 ceasefire until Israel broke the ceasefire with their Novemebr 4th raid tha tkilled 6 Palestinians.

"Israeli Navy commandos prevented a terror attack on Monday morning when a unit of heavily armed Palestinian frogmen was intercepted in the Nahal Aza area."

Really? Wheer was that reported? More Al Qaeda?

Please dont make me laugh.

"The troops opened fire after calls to stop were ignored, and five terrorists were killed in the ensuing gunfight."

As so often happens when Palestinians are killed, they are called aterrorists after the fact.

if there were frogmen wearing diving gear and trying to swim from Gaza to an Israeli city along the Mediterranean coast, such an audatious attempt would have been widely publicized.

They say there's a fool born every minute, and you're one of them.

That is inherently false. There have been no suicide attacks since the Security Fence has been built. Hamas has agreed that it is too hard to attack Israel whil the Fence is up. Why would Hamas stop using a tactic that had worked for them up until then?

How long was this cease fire for? A whole 4 months while Hamas was re-arming. Because Im sure Israel simply loves being rocketed daily and simply couldnt wait to come back and start them over. Is that your logic?

No, thats a trap you walked in to. Apparently you dont read the news when Israelis are attempted to be murdered by Palestinians Muslims.
Look! Haaretz says it is the fourth only of the year! Proved you wrong.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/palestinian-bulldozer-driver-rampages-flips-cop-car-before-being-shot-dead-two-policemen-hurt-1.271548

I am surprised you walked into that trap.

Starting wars and massacaring civilians is not retaliatory defense of Israel. As Tzipi Livni said, a long ceasefire was not in Israel's strategic interests, meaning that Israel would rather have war than return stolen land.
And where is the quote? OR did she say it and you were there so you cant quote directly? Massacring civilians? Like Hamas did after they were "democratically" elected?

I like how you have no other comback besides the term nazi. You couldnt even prove that logic wrong.

Although I agree with Walt, because I despise Apartheid so much, I ask myself if it's wishful thinking? Could the Israel Lobby and the media politicise the issue such that it is neutralized?

although they probably have it better off than neighboring Arabs in other states. Their political parties are routinely banned, their citizenship is more easily revoked, and they are widely discriminated against. No, most don't serve in the army, mainly to avoid fighting against relatives. Polls have shown that Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza would enjoy the rights and status of Israeli Arabs in a binational state, but most Israelis don't want that.

if you are looking for perfect then you won't find it. However, the Israeli arabs do not have it equal. In some sense they are above the law. They routinely do not pay taxes, pay for water, pay for electricity, or any other services that every citizen has to pay for. Why? They just go delinquent on their bills and riot if police come to enforce payment. They don't serve in the army. Fair enough, they don't want to shoot arabs (despite that Druze Arabs, Circassian muslims, and bedouin arab muslims serve in the army - often in combat units). However, they could AT LEAST do national service. Israelis who don't want to serve in the Army go to 2-3 years of national service. This means they work in retirement homes, hospitals, clean up their villages, teach in schools, do youth programs, etc. Are you telling me that a muslim arab cannot even do 2-3 years of service to clean up his or her community? To visit the old and sick? We are not even talking about Jewish retirement homes or Jewish villages (though that should not matter). We are talking about serving their OWN community. At the same time, these arabs go to Israeli universities, publicly funded by Israeli tax payers and get a jump start on their education, while the Jews are in the army or doing national service. They then enter the economy 3 years earlier and begin their life, career training, and making money much faster than any Israeli Jew.

Simply go down to Beer Sheva or Hebrew University. You will see a signficant number of arabs in the pharmacy, medical, and dental training programs to name a few. Walk into any Israeli pharmacy and the chances that the pharmacist is arab is like 80%. What I have stated above is true to anyone who has been to Israel many times.

Now tell me how the above situation is fair? Why some must give and others expect everything to come to them without giving back anything to their own communities, let alone the State.

"Since the Oslo Peace Process agreements in 1993 over ninety percent of West Bank and Gaza Arabs are not under the official rule of Israel."

42% of the West Bank is now covered by illegal settlements. The PA has no power, and in fact was threatened with the Gaza treatment by Likud if it endorsed the Goldstone Report.

Even Barak has said Israel is headed towards an apartheid state. Only dead enders are denying it.

Israel has taken control of 80% of the fresh water sources in the West Bank and destroyed any ability for the Palestinians to control the electricity they are provided with.

It doesn't help that their houses are routinely bulldozed, that they are evicted, forced to opass through check points and ensure home invasions and watch their children being used by the IDF for target practice.

The Arabs who do go to universities aer forced to attend Israeli ones, since those are the only ones left standing. Even in Israel for every dollar that goes to an Arab student, 5 dollars go to Jewish secular students and 12 to orthodox Jewish students.

Israel is a fascist apartheid state. End of story.

Arabs in the West bank and gaza have PLENTY OF universities. Israel never attacked any of them. You are so full of shit. Guess when all these Palestinian universities opened? Under the Israeli "occupation." That's right, Jordan never built a single university in the west bank for the arabs there. Only Israel did. and guess how many Jews can go to these universities? ZERO.

Now, thousands upon thousands of palestinians go to Israeli universities. And yes, there are equal funds allocated to arabs and jews there.

the routine bulldozing of houses? are you fucking kidding me? When is the last time that happened? and who does it happen to? only known terrorists who killed people. Aww so sad. They killed someone and you could not give a shit. but if their house is destroyed, you cry so hard.

And you still didn't disprove that over 90% of Palestinians are governed by their own Palestinian government! Wow, that is apartheid? having your own government internationally recognized government?

You are the only fascist and you are a liar.

Name one of the universities in the West Bank.

"Israel never attacked any of them."

They have in Gaza.

"Now, thousands upon thousands of palestinians go to Israeli universities. And yes, there are equal funds allocated to arabs and jews there"

False again. There are 5 dollars allocated to Jewish students fo r every dollar allocated to Arab students.

"the routine bulldozing of houses? are you fucking kidding me? When is the last time that happened? and who does it happen to? only known terrorists who killed people."

You guys are a laugh a minute. First you deny the crime, then you admit it, but claim it was justified. So yeah, you delcare a house the home fo a terroist and then you demolish it.

"Aww so sad. They killed someone and you could not give a shit."

Yeah and I'm sure there plenty of "evidence" to prove it right? Like when Isrla claims the Mavi Marmamara had 75 al Qaeda oepratives on board, but then released all of them?

You guys are hillarious.

"And you still didn't disprove that over 90% of Palestinians are governed by their own Palestinian government!"

I don't need to, because Israel have built settlements on 42% of the West Bank and none of those settlements were built with Palestinian approval.

Debunking you crazies is too easy.

So yes, that's apartheid. Just as the guy who invented apartheid. He was describing Israel as an apartheid state in the 60's.

You should be a commedian.

banustan government. It's passports are recognized by nearly as many nations around the world as Israel's. It has more international recognition than Taiwan. It's government was elected by the Palestinians (though Abbas' desire to forgo democracy is his own decision and has nothing to do with Israel). In total 150 countries are known to currently have some form of relations with either the Palestinian Authority or the 1988-proclaimed State of Palestine.

The PA also creates its own laws and regulations. It has its own infrastructure, roads, economy (developing - Fayyad), jail system, educational system, state run media, stock exchange, intelligence agencies, and police force. It's security forces are totally independent of Israel, and in fact have been involved in numerous shoot-outs with Israeli forces in the past.

The PA will never vote to disband itself. Why? Running the PA has always been too good of an industry for those involved. Arafat did not get to be one of Forbes 50 richest men in the world by doing nothing. The moment the Palestinians shift away from the two state idea, is the moment the leaders lose their power, the people lose their aid money, and international sympathy as well.

The PA and the Palestinian territories are akin to another country, with their own laws, law enforcement, intelligence agencies, passports, roads, prisons, stock exchange, etc. It is nothing like South Africa. It is essentially like the US and Mexico if the two countries had an undefined border (which at one point they did).

Now did the bantustans have their own passports? Foreign offices and foreign relations with over 150 countries? Did they have their own intelligence agencies? Their own stock exchange?

This is not apartheid. It's two different peoples governed by their own independent (and largely representative) governments.

Vilkssweden, This is a strong answer to my question. I don't know if it is absolutely definitive, and what the Palestinians might have in store. The personal mobility issue might be brought forth in debates on the issue. But this is a strong answer. Robert

And I appreciate your comments. I understand the complaints the Palestinians have with mobility issues. However, again, as separate nationalities mobility will be restricted. Particularly with the security concerns involved. Keep in mind the never mentioned but true notion that Jewish mobility is restricted as well. Though they do not face checkpoints, they face the real danger of violence if they enter palestinian areas with their Israeli license plates (or any other indicator if Israeli identity). Israeli cars are routinely stoned, shot at, and occasionally have molotov cocktails thrown at them if entering the wrong area. These "restrictions" are not as official as a checkpoint, but when you are in Israel, you will see that every Israeli knows he cannot go in certain areas or take certain roads for fears of safety. I know this from actually being there. Unlike Arabs, Israelis fear for their lives if walking or driving in the wrong areas.

Vilkssweden,

Let's continue this discussion about what the future holds for Palestinian power. Ehud Olmert, Ehud Barak, Stephen Walt, and John Mearsheimer have all spoken about the demographic issue and it's central and critical importance for Israel to remain a Jewish state. Ariel Sharon understood it too. I think we can see from the 30,000 foot level that it makes sense. The question is: how would it be implemented? Lets shoot forward in time to the point that there are more Palestinian citizens than Israeli citizens, even by a nice margin. At that point, what new power options does the Palestinian government have?

They will say to the international community that they tried to negotiate a two state solution, but that Israeli intrasigence and settlers got in the way. Therefore the PA will push for a one-state solution. Then what happens? I would say that the Israel-Palestine issue will become internationalized, and the issue of democratic values versus Jewish state values will be pushed out to the world. Every other country will be forced to ask itself what it thinks of the Israeli side and the Palestinian side. I think that the world will come down on the Palestinian side because of the following reasons: On territory, Israel's position is legally very shaky. The settlers have survived via loopholes in the law, and nonexistent international enforcement. On Jerusalem, the Palestinians similarly want territory taken in '67 by force. Also, having visited recently, East Jerusalem is massively Arab. The international community, given an opportunity to weigh in on the issue, would find it strange to give Arab Jerusalem to Israel. Even Arafat agreed to give the Western Wall to Israel. On refugees, I think that the Palestinians have already come to the point that those that return to Israel would be a token, and no demographic threat whatsoever.

So please address this issue, from the perspective of an absolute Palestinian majority a few years down the road. Democracies, by virtue of their absolute belief in democracy, will be hard pressed to ignore the Palestinian majority. Palestinian complaints about Israeli intransigence will be powerful because I think that their demands meet common-sense values.

RPicker, you are a bit all over the map in your post, but I'll try to address everything as best I can. If I miss something please let me know.

It is true that demographic issues are a problem for Israel. First, lets assume there is a 2 state solution created. That means that the 1.5 million gaza palestinians and 1-2 million west bank palestinians will be out of the picture. As full citizens of a palestinian state, there are no democratic issues for Israel.

Now, with about 21% of the Israeli population as arabs, there may very well be some democratic issue in the future. There are a few ideas for this. One is that in any final status negotiation, Israeli settlers are transfered to Israel or their land is incorporated into Israel. In return, Israeli Arabs (non-druze and non-bedouin) are given palestinian citizenship rather than Israeli. Or, the land in which they are heavily concentrated (some areas of the Galilee) is traded for areas where Jews are heavily concentrated (some west bank blocs).

However, there are also counter trends as well. Arab birth rates are going down. This is true for both Israeli arabs and west bank palestinians. It's due to a number of social factors such as a higher divorce rate, more family planning (sponsored by UN oftentimes), and westernization and greater integration into the economy.

At the same time, Jewish birthrates are on the rise. This is not only from the orthodox sector but the secular society as well. there has been an almost 40% increase in births from 1995-2007.

The issues you bring up with land, such as Jerusalem borders, etc. are all topics that will be dealt with. The reality is no one, even the leaders of Israel and the Palestinians, know what the final border arrangement would be.

Right of return is a sticky issue. I do not think Israel will allow palestinians into Israel proper. Especially not when there is a palestinian state which they could just as easily move to.

The real question is, what are the incentives for both parties to create a deal. For Israel, it would really create political discord. The country would be divided and of course, leaders risk not being elected. For palestinians, leaders risk assassination if they are seen as giving in too much. The leaders also lose the billions in foreign assistance, which they tend to pocket and dole out to their followers. Again, Arafat did not become one of Forbes top 50 richest men in the world for nothing (I didn't think revolutionary leaders were paid thaaaaat much!). In my opinion both sides have an incentive to keep the status quo rather than make any painful compromises. The Palestinians are better off with the world's sympathy and international aid than they are trying to govern a divided, inconsequential state (which would be just one in many among arab and muslim nations).