i was using the language of 'genocide' to describe israel's activity in the west bank as early as 2010, and specifically to counter the use of the term 'apartheid'. you don't hear talk of apartheid any more. maybe i got my point across, which is that israel did not want a system of apartheid, it wanted to deport them to jordan. the policy on gaza is in flux, but it used to be that gaza was seen as outside of israel because it was the philistine regions; that's insane, but it's what the israelis actually perceive of as real. there was a period when kerry was secretary of state when he tried to organize an apartheid system in order to create jobs for palestinians by bringing in israeli industry (essentially enslaving palestinians for israeli benefit), which actually would have been helpful. actual apartheid in the south african meaning of the term would have been a betterment of the material conditions of most palestinians, who are being slowly assimilated or expelled. the israelis rejected these proposals under the grounds that they wanted the jobs to go to israelis, or to african migrants (of which there are a lot of in israel). israel has not wanted a system of enslavement or apartheid at all, it wanted to get rid of them, and it was a struggle to try to correct the language.
now that activists are using more correct language about genocide in the west bank, i've once again moved past them, and i think i am again ahead of the curve. we'll find out. i also have begun to support a policy of annihilation in gaza, in response to the terrorist attacks and continued societal support of hamas. i don't see any other option but to wipe these people out, the way the romans had to wipe out the carthaginians, or, indeed, the jews themselves. they won't adapt, change or evolve; the other option is to die, and that's the bed they've made for themselves. it's their own fault.
palestine has no likelihood of success of obtaining statehood and that idea needs to be abandoned. the gaza strip should remain under israeli occupation until it can be annexed by egypt, who should be responsible for security. let the arabs rebuild the strip as they will, as a part of egypt. the saudis apparently want a port on the mediterranean.
the west bank should be annexed by israel, but that does not mean continuing oppression of the people that live there. if i'm ahead of the curve, it's in realizing that this is a political issue internal to israel and it has been for a long time, nor am i the first person to observe this. people that have solidarity with the rights of moderate palestinians in a secular society need to focus on civil rights issues inside israel. the comparison is not to south africa, it's to the southern united states, and a strong civil rights movement could succeed in ways that a sovereignty movement is doomed to fail. they don't need a nelson mandela, they need a martin luther king.
this issue appears set to morph and redefine itself yet again over the next four years. it should emerge as a civil rights issue in the state of israel. they're going to need to learn to respect each other and to get along, which means accepting things like jewish access to the western wall and the temple mount, and things like palestinian land rights, on equal terms.
you're allowed to disagree with me. please avoid mischaracterizing me.