As for the “non-Aboriginals,” that statement is so nonsensical as to justify being utterly ignored.

As I stated in my first comments: “It is for Palestinians to decide.”

As far as realism goes, at this point in time, the Palestinians are likely to only get more misery heaped on them. Even discussing a two-state solution, I believe, is unrealistic, and the course of recent history supports this. There is no intention on either the American government or Israeli government’s side to agree to two states.

Lastly, I do not see why a two-state solution is more realistic than a one-state solution.

Therefore, I respectfully submit that since your scenario is appeasement to Zionist genocidaires, and since it also unrealistic, what is the purpose of discussing the unrealistic, especially insofar as it moves any Palestinian startpoint in negotiations to an unacceptable maximum?

Suppose that the governments of the international community led by the one in Washington DC did use the leverage they have, and that by using it they got Israel back to its borders as they were on 4 June 1967; also

Suppose that a sovereign Palestine state was then established on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip with either East Jerusalem its capital or Jerusalem an open, undivided city and the capital of two states; also

Suppose that in the name of pragmatism, the government of the Palestinian state accepted (as Arafat and his senior leadership colleagues did accept in principle) that the Palestinian right of return had to be limited to return to the Palestinian state with financial compensation for those who wanted to return and for whom there was no space; also

Suppose that on the basis of the above the governments of the entire Arab and wider Muslim world declared the conflict with Israel to be over – i.e. that (still in the name of pragmatism) the conditions for a full and final peace had been met.

I agree with you, Kim, that such a peace would NOT be a just one. I have said so a number of times in articles on this site. (My own view, represented in a headline to one article, is One State or Catastrophe for All – http://www.palint.org/article.php?articleid=5).

So you have a point when you say that a two-state solution based on 1967 lines would amount to a “grand appeasement of Zionism”.

But…

In principle/theory it’s the best deal the Palestinians are ever likely to get.

In reality they are not going to get it. In my view, stated explicitly a number of times on this site, the most likely scenario is not an end to Israeli occupation of all Arab land grabbed in 1967 (in a war of aggression not self-defense), but Zionism’s final ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

What do you propose that is realistic?

Further, it does not address the right of return, reparations, and an end to apartheid.

Sorry, but this appears to be a grand appeasement of Zionism.

I see them both as products of a western mentality also heartily adopted and endorsed by the Zionists, that of course being the belief that if something exists, we are automatically entitled to take it. This belief applies to everything from fossil fuel and clean water to land and the lives of people who are not as politically powerful as we. As the planet is crushed under a population it cannot sustain, the scientists funded by government money are looking on other planets for basic resources such as water. By the same token, the Zionists are perpetually coming up with ways to eliminate opposition to their agenda of ethnically cleansing Palestine of Palestinians, and their successes have as much to do with ideology as they do with military aggression.

The inherent greed of Zionist ideology is what makes it acceptable to the West; after all acquisitiveness is a characteristic of capitalism and is one of the building blocks of the western world. Take it before someone else does; get it while the gettin’s good. Disguise your greed as “need” by putting forth the argument that “natural growth” requires new settlement building; issue an open invitation to the world’s Chosen People to emigrate and there you have it: justification for the continuation of theft and deception.

Interestingly, the material acquisitiveness of the west has triggered its decline much as the same catalyst caused the fall of the Roman Empire. In the basic equation of life, it is obvious that one cannot continue to take, and take, without putting something back. There is a bill that comes due. This is also an essential belief in Native American spirituality and in Islam, which also take it a step further by advising us that a person’s wealth lies not in how much he gets, but in how much he gives.

When one thinks about it, this is a very important lesson. It is applicable in everything from politics to farming, and it is certainly applicable now more than ever.