Is a Palestinian State Still Possible? 

Happy New Year to you all! I'm kicking off 2023 with a big and always controversial issue. On 30 December 2022, the UN General Assembly put the question of Israel's ongoing occupation of Palestine before the International Court of Justice. But what do you think will happen? And will it have any effect on efforts to find a lasting settlement? As ever, I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts and comments. Also, as you'll see, I'm really delighted to welcome World Politics Review on board as a channel sponsor. It really is a fantastic publication. I have actually written for them in the past and so can vouch for them in the highest terms! Do give it a look: wpr.pub/jkl Many thanks!

As you said Professor, the decision will be non-binding. In the anarchic world of international relations, force is the only law. The dwindling support for the Palestinian Authority shows that the Palestinian people are understanding this fact more and more. They have also looked to their neighbors to the north. The UN Security Council passed a resolution in 1978 demanding Israel cease its invasion and occupation of Lebanon, which Israel ignored for 22 years. The occupation ended only from the pressure of the Lebanese guerillas. Palestinians have noticed this.

YEARS AGO I had a friendly discussion with Ariel Sharon. I told him: "I am first of all an Israeli. After that I am a Jew." He responded heatedly: "I am first of all a Jew, and only after that an Israeli!" That may look like an abstract debate. But in reality, this is the question that lies at the heart of all our basic problems. It is the core of the crisis which is now rending Israel apart. THE IMMEDIATE cause of this crisis is the law that was adopted in great haste last week by the rightist Knesset majority. It is entitled "Basic Law: Israel the Nation State of the Jewish People". This is a constitutional law. When Israel was founded during the war of 1948, it did not adopt a constitution. There was a problem with the Orthodox religious community, which made an agreed formula impossible. Instead David Ben-Gurion read out a "Declaration of Independence", which announced that "we are founding the Jewish State, namely the State of Israel". The declaration did not become law. The Supreme Court adopted its principles without a legal basis. The new document, however, is a binding law. So what is new about the new law, which at a first glance looks like a copy of the declaration? It contains two important omissions: the declaration spoke of a "Jewish and Democratic" state, and promised full equality between all its citizens, without regard to religion, ethnicity or sex. All this has disappeared. No democracy. No equality. A state of the Jews, for the Jews, by the Jews. THE FIRST to cry out were the Druze. The Druze are a small and close-knit minority. They send their sons to serve in the Israeli army and police and consider themselves "blood brothers". Suddenly they have been robbed of all their legal rights and sense of belonging. Are they Arabs or not? Muslims or not? That depends on who is speaking, where and what for. They threaten to demonstrate, to leave the army and generally rebel. Binyamin Netanyahu tries to bribe them, but they are a proud community. However, the Druze are not the main point. The new law completely ignores the 1.8 million Arabs who are Israeli citizens, including the Bedouin and Christians. (No one even thinks about the hundreds of thousands of European Christians, who immigrated with their Jewish spouses and other relatives, mainly from Russia.) The Arabic language with all its splendor, which until now was one of the two official languages, was demoted to a mere "special status", whatever that means. (All this applies to Israel proper, not to the 5 million or so Arabs in the occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip, who have no rights at all.) Netanyahu is defending this law like a lion against mounting criticism from within. He has publicly declared that all the Jewish critics of the law are leftists and traitors (synonyms), "who have forgotten what it is to be Jewish". AND THAT is really the point. Years ago, my friends and I asked the Supreme Court to change the "nationality" entry in our identity cards, from "Jewish" to “Israeli". The courts refused, stating that there is no Israeli nation. The official register recognizes almost a hundred nations, but not an Israeli one. This curious situation started with the birth of Zionism in the late 19th century. It was a Jewish movement, designed to solve the Jewish Question. The settlers in Palestine were Jewish. The whole project was closely connected with Jewish tradition. But once a second generation of settlers grew up, they felt uneasy about being just Jewish, like Jews in Brooklyn or Krakow. They felt that they were something new, different, special. The most extreme were a small group of young poets and artists, who in 1941 formed an organization nicknamed "the Canaanites", who proclaimed that we were a new nation, a Hebrew one. In their enthusiasm they went to extremes, declaring that we have nothing to do with Jews abroad, and that there was no Arab nation - Arabs were just Hebrews who had adopted Islam. Uri Avnery

From the perspective of October 2023 after the conflict broke out, Professor’s analysis almost sounded like a hindsight explanation of why the conflict was inevitable. Hamas’s motivation and actions makes a lot more sense now.

Maybe you can make a video about the geopolitics in the Middle-East? For example: The cold war between Iran and Saudi-Arabia, The situation in Syria and Iraq, or the civil war in Yemen. I'd love to hear your thoughts on those conflicts/situations.

The move of the Palestinians to the ICJ reminds the move of Namibia against South Africa. This is the first precedent in term of international law. It would be legally interesting to deep-dive in this direction, both in term of jurisdiction and legal implications.

Amazing and informative talk, as usual. And I love the new setup! I think it’d be even better if the background wasn’t blurred. An insightful episode, a strong start to 2023. Thank you!

Studio is looking better than ever, new camera as well maybe? Welcome back professor, another interesting thought provoking video!

@Prof James I honestly applaud you for making this video about this topic. Especially when I see the internet comment brigade spewing all this hate and all these claims. I think what us missed in this whole argument is that the topic is about human rights. It’s not simply a argument of land ownership. There are life’s at stake. People are nixed and live in austere conditions. The fact that I grew up in several countries made me aware that it is important for journalists to simply report the factual details on a topic not to add or detract. Most news agencies or social media does not do that. They choose a bias, an political agenda. The strongest and highest bidder is usually in a more favorable position. I tip my hat to you good sir.

"Even if the court argues that Israel has violated international law, the Israeli government will be under no obligate to act on the decision" what's even the point than? The case holding Moral weight means little to nothing for the Palestinians being push out and killed off of their own land.

I absolutely love how you describe these facts. As a person with autism I really appreciate how you stick to the facts. It's so engaging. Thank you! ❤️❤️❤️❤️

Great and informative video, I welcome the esthetic changes and hoping for an excellent new year for you and the community. Hoping that as soon as possible, this issue (war) will finally be settled and peace prevails in Palestine and Israel. Cheers from Brazil.

As a palestinian, i think that by now, the only viable option is to annex palestine, and give us the right to vote as equal citizens!

Thanks for sharing this with us boss, interesting video.

Thank you for this great content.

Hello James, I have a request but I'm not sure if it would qualify. I've recently been reading a few works about Lee Kuan Yew and I found the merger with Malaysia a very interesting topic. For example, Lee's claim to Singaporean people that the breakup of the merger was a case of Singapore being kicked out, rather than the mutual agreement it actually was. In his work on Lee Michael D Barr argued that this was essentially a way for Lee to create an external pressure that would act as an incentive on building the new state and identity within the population, like a siege mentality type thing. Thought this might be of interest in statecraft, but I understand that this is more historical so may not be best for the channel. Cheers.

Very good channel learned a lot thank you

Then comes the 7th October 2023... Thank you Prof for partly explaining why it happened #freepalestine 🇵🇸

Arthur Koestler advances the thesis that Ashkenazi Jews are not descended from the historical Israelites of antiquity, but from Khazars, a Turkic people originating in and populating an empire north of and between the Black Sea and Caspian Sea.

Fantastic analysis as always! With everything going on elsewhere it's so easy to lose focus on this conflict. It would be wonderful for a judgement to result in meaningful progress. I doubt that will be likely in the short term, but at least there will be more scrutiny. Thanks again!

Is there even a way to fix this quagmire. I don't fully understand the complex situation, but i would like to know what could be done for a peaceful resolution that both parties can agree on

That's informative, thank you for sharing.

Great video Professor!

Well, new camera and studio setup for new year. And there's the fact that you have a sponsored video now, which I never saw earlier. Anyways, happy new year.

You're explanations is mostly accurate but how can you see the UN as an objective establishment? In the UN human rights council you have countries like Syria and China...if you combine the UN resolutions against all the countries in the world you still have to double it to get to the amount of resolutions against israel.

In 1947 when UN granted Jews and Arabs opportunity to create a state, Palestinians REFUSED, while Jews took the chance to declare independence. History tells us there was King David who ruled over a nation called Israel with its undivided capital Jerusalem. There was never anywhere near there a state called Palestine so when nations of the world is possessed with the word OCCUPATION like fashion it baffles me.

By using RU-vid Auto Translate, you can read sub titles for this presentation in many languages. A viewer asked for Spanish sub titles. The RU-vid Video "Auto Translate RU-vid Videos into Your Language" shows how to do this.

Israel geneticist Dr. According to Eran Elhaik's latest genetic research, today's Israelis are descended from the Khazar Turks, not from the Middle East

Commend you on such a well made video.

James, I support Israel but I have no connection with the Jewish people, I merely support them because I think morally they are in the right. Often the "original owner" argument is made, well, didn't the Jews exist in Palestine since 1.000 BC while the Palestinians came in 700 AD after the Muslim Conquest? Then there's also the "stolen land" argument, didn't the Jews return to the land that was originally theirs that they were forced out of? And then there's the war argument: Didn't the Jews accept the 50/50 partition in 1947 while the Palestinians attacked the Jews? And didn't later the Arab world started 3 more wars to exterminate Israel (The Six-Days war was a pre-emptive strike, let's be real, why would Egypt, Syria and Jordan mass troops on Israel's border at the same time) and Israel won. It's not the first nor the last country to win war through conquest, and given that Israel was the defender in all those wars and the Arabs attacked (+ original owner) I find the "Palestinians are in the right" argument very difficult. I'm not talking about the humanitarian side of the conflict with innocent people dead, but strictly legally and morally as far as states are concerned, I don't see any compelling argument for why Palestine is in the right.

Thanks Prof. Excellent as always 👍🏻👍🏻

Prof James-Lindsay A happy New Year To You and Yours also thank you for the survey highley appreciated I would like too have more surveys in the future it would be great too be reanbursed for them but if not I appreciate your time and will continue to do the very best to give my ideas or answers honest to the best of my knowledge a (the 9th grade education has proes and cons Thank You again have a blessed Years sincerely Robin Burgett

I understand your decision to start in 1947. As you noted, it is highly complicated and requires selecting some starting pint. But I think for the same reasons (I suspect) you chose 1947, it would be highly useful for your viewers to have started in 1920 with San Remo briefly to include delineation of (1) the area under discussion as a coherent area and (2) as part of that process, delineation from Transjordan.

There's something called the Israel's trilemma that summarize the problem. It goes like this: Israel aspire to three things: *1)* Be a Jewish state, *2)* be a modern democracy, and *3)* and to have security guarantees over the possible attacks from the West Bank. The thing is that only can has 2 of 3 at any momment: If it keeps the West Bank for security reasons, it can be a democracy granting equal rights to arabs, but risking the integrity as a state with jewish identity *(Ony 3 and 2).* If it keeps the West Bank and wants to stay as a Jewsish state, it most likely wouldnt be a modern democracy. *(Only 3 and 1)* It could be a democracy and keep the population identity of a Jewish State *(1 and 2),* but this will be easier by giving up any pretension over the West Bank.

It’s such a complicated issue as we know and I don’t want to get into the specific issues at play, the UNGA decision is interesting, as will be the court proceeding, but as you indicated in reality they are little more than theater. In any case the UNGA has a long anti-Western streak, the Arab monarchies teaming with Israel on economic ventures and on fighting Iran and its proxies seem to point to the way the tide is shifting. From my layman’s perspective, it seems that the Palestinians, ever since the Hamas takeover of Gaza, are increasingly viewed by many of their former supporters as a lost cause, and Fatah likewise viewed as powerless. I’m not sure where it goes from here but definitely agree with your assessment that a two-state solution is looking increasingly unlikely. Thanks for the video professor!

Happy new Year Prof JKL

Dear Prof how democratic is palestine really? one of the most interesting aspects of de facto republics are elections and how free they are in these countries because most de facto republics are meant to make a people more free. There are therefore more democratic de facto republics (such as Artsakh) and less democratic republics (such as South Ossetia). Have studies been carried out on how satisfied the population is with the government in some de facto republics? thanks for reading and hopefully you can answer my questions.

Happy new year professor! Do you believe that any verdict concerning the settlers, will have legal ramifications for the settlers in Cyprus? I recall an article of the Jerusalem Post, dated February 9, 2020, in which International Criminal Court is accused of double standards, concerning the settlers in the West Bank, and occupied Cyprus.

Great content professor. Maybe adopting a narration that sounds less like an article would make attract more followers from a wider background.

Where else in the world does the issue de facto annexation arise?

Israel is like I hear the international grievances and we looked into and found no wrong doing.

As always, great analysis professor! This is a very complex issue, and the ICJ now faces the daunting task of what to do over the west bank settlements.

People don’t realize how tiny is this disputed territory. Israel without West Bank is a 16km wide country that can’t be defended. And with 9 million of citizens today Israel has not enough space to reduce its territory. And why should they? They were attacked and they won the wars.

I find it ironic Ukraine didn’t vote in favour considering they are being invaded as we speak, and also I find it fascinating that the ex Soviet countries voted along religious lines.

You refer to the 67 line as a border although it is not a border between countries. Also I see you talking about Palestine although technically it is the Palestinian authority. And the presentation does not explain that there are legal ground for israel occupation going back to the League of Nations whose resolutions the UN took over.

Great video! I'm glad I found this channel last month. This is one of the most complicated issues and this did a great job of explaining the situation and the background. On one hand, the Jewish Israelis have been under attack by it's neighbors. But on the other hand, there was some movements towards peace in the 90's and 00's which were derailed by a number of actions -- the assassination of the PM in 1995 by far right winger and the settlements expanding into Palestine. This of course caused more backlash from Palestinians and terrorist attacks picked up. Israel responded with more force, walling off much of Palestine, and increased settlements. The issue I see more recently is that West Bank has progressed since the 2000's. Terrorist attacks minimized, more moderate politicians, etc. They made all the right moves towards peace. How did Israel respond? Continued settlements and more human rights abuses. Israel is showing they will no longer consider actual peace. Then you have Gaza Strip. They run by what many consider a terrorist organization that is still using terrorist attacks on Israel. While the West Bank government and people have seemed to do all the right things to increase cooperation with Israel (if Israel ever cared), the Gaza is doing all the wrong things and there are some justifications for some of Israel's actions in Gaza. The fact that there are three players involved and not two is certainly complicating the situation even more. It's clear that the increasing settlements in the west bank are an attempt by Israel to eventually consume all of the west bank. Annexation little by little. So long as Israel continues to built settlements and so long as Hamas is in control of Gaza, there is no chance for any peaceful resolution. In regards to the UN resolution, it's a mixed bag. There are some I expected on one side or the other but rest are just a mix bag. It's interesting to see Russia and China vote in favor of it while they are both committing terrible human rights abuses -- one with even more severe treatment of Muslims and the other with war crimes in Ukraine. Maybe they are hoping to deflect on their human rights abuses but I would have thought they would have abstained.

When you refer to international laws do you mean SAN REMO Conference Resolution or League of Nations Resolution ? All those resolutions were violated by Arabs states. The fair and just treatment of the UN and international organizations to Israel in particular and Jews in general will never ever be applied -this is an axiom.

An excellent, unusually evenhanded, presentation. However, while Prof. K-L mentions the W.Bank security barrier, and the international disapproval it's received, he doesn't mention why it was built. Why, after 53 years with no Green Line barrier, did Israel suddenly decide to build it?

Very good analysis thank you - question for another video - was Britain’s occupation of Palestine under the terms of a League of Nations mandate properly to be described as colonial control?

In addition to the annexation of the Golan Hights, Israel also annexed Eastern Jerusalem by adopting the Jerusalem act in the 1980th.

Nice background!

James love the colours you are using....

There is no right of Israel or palestian. There is only the right of strongest. And Israel is stronger and can do what ever they want. And USA supporting this Israel colonial politic.

Dear Professor what is your view on the closure of the lachin corridor by Azerbaijani so called ‘activists’ and what do you think should be done by the international community to prevent a potential new war and to provide the inhabitants with food and medicine.

Two state solution can only work when both states want a solution. Both Israel and Palistine are not interested in this process.

Given experience with occupation, one would expect Cyprus to be anything but neutral in this matter. Yet, it appears to be. Why?

I’m an Israeli history student. I want a Palestinian state. I also know everything there is to know about Middle East history. Ask me anything

Sadly, Israel has lost the moral high ground with this new government. The religious right has taken over, and if they stay in power, it will be the end of Israel. And I say that as someone who firmly supported Israel in the past.

Subtitulos en español por favor.

Professor, please can you tell me if the majority of the UN members have told Israel to not carry on with the majority of its actions. Why does the US, UK and most of the more influential members of the UN arm, train, finance and support Israel. If it is a question of faith. Then what kind of moral reality do these communities have?. One does not hesitate to be extremely disappointed that we the Muslims in the world look on and ask if this is just a game which keeps being played to have rules which are made and broken to aid the progress of the Israel project. Some doing for geopolitical reasons. Some of those involved doing it for faith reasons. All the while many innocent men, women and children continue suffering daily for the last 100 years.

When was there an Palestine state? The last Muslims to occupy Israel* were the Ottoman Turks (1516-1917), who, btw, never called the land "Palestine"; The Muslims now suing for the land are Arabs. From the time of the Tulunids to the end of Ottoman power in Israel (878-1917), the Turks, and not the Arabs, were the principal foreign rulers of Israel under one dynasty or another, even though during this millennium and more, power also resided in the hands of non-Turkish rulers, ranging from the North African Fatimids, the chiefly French Catholic Crusaders, the Kurdish Ayyubids and the Circassian Mamluks. Know that "Palestinian" as a noun is nonexistent in ancient literature. In the main, Arabs only began calling themselves "Palestinians" in the 1960s for political expediency. Let's look at some United Nations resolutions and how they addressed the Arabs to bring home this point: United Nation Resolution 181 (Partition Resolution) of 1947 never refers to the Arabs as "Palestinians," but simply as "Arabs." As late as 1968, U.N. General Assembly Resolution 2443 refers to the Arabs as 'inhabitants,' 'the population,' or 'the Arab civilian population.' Not once does it use the term "Palestinians." *The king of Moab (present-day Jordan) mentions Israel in the 9th Cen. BCE Mesha Stele. Israel precedes Palestine. The name of the land is Israel.

Video Ignores several aspects and nuances. 1. UN plan was never a binding resolution, Palestinians were not obliged to accept it. UN plan in large part was unjust to Palestinians, it gave half of the land for Jewish state, even though Jews owned only around 7% of total land. 2. Arab armies launched war on Israel, because Jewish militia was ethinically cleansing Palestinians. 3.Israel never left Gaza, it merely lifted its ground presence, while continuing to occupy Gaza strip externally.

I'm really afraid that the senseless violence between Israelis and Palestinians will turn for the very worst.

The World with peace, unity and love,, watching from berbera somaliland rep,,, thanks all info news

I heard about some people talking about Israel and Palestine should be switched to a federal government.

Hey James! There's one thing that you didn't mention that is essential to the legal debate - The term 'occupation' implies that the land in question was ruled by a sovereign political entity who has now been occupied. There has never been a Palestinian state. In '67, Israel won the land from Jordan during a war, Jordan took the land in '48 during the Arab-Israel War, but the previous rulers were the British empire. Before them, the land was part of the Ottoman empire. Actually, the most recent local government was the Hasmonian dynasty. So the term 'occupation' is misleading at best.

When criticising Britain and using terms like colonialism, it is worth mentioning that Britain did not ask for the Great War, did not persecute Jews in Eastern Europe forcing them to move, and did not attempt to settle Palestine. One never hears why the Ottoman Empire didn’t decolonisation and grant its peoples self determination.

2 Moses my servant is dead; now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, thou, and all this people, unto the land which I do give to them, even to the children of Israel. 3Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, that have I given unto you, as I said unto Moses. 4From the wilderness and this Lebanon even unto the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and unto the great sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your coast." GOD said, enough said. Joshua 1: 2-4

New subscriber here if these court has no implications isn't kind of irrelevant?

The problem is, Israel turned into a country, the palestinians are governed city states. As far as i understand the old british legal framework was intended to allow both groups to self govern and hash things out themselves. Since then wars and treaties have happened, and loads of broken promises, mostly on the arab side. And as far as i understand there is nothing illegal about the armed conflict. Its just a very much extended temporary battle ceasefire, that gets infringed on in most cases by palestinians. Israel had just made better use of resources over the years, including hiring palestinians to help build their country. If they went to war, it wouldnt be illegal. Just like territorial occupation isnt illegal during wartimes. Its just the losing side (palestinians)getting to complain more because the other side (Israel) isnt very interested in conquering them.

I wonder how will the verdict be affected by the annexation and ongoing war in Ukraine. The court will have to be very strong willed and not forgiving in such global atmosphere or it risks loosing any legitimacy

Original and most debated IR topic I would think. 😅

The resort to the International Court of Justice by the PLO is itself a violation of the Oslo Accords. Under Oslo, any disputes must be resolved by negotiation between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs, by agreed-upon conciliation, or agreed-upon arbitration.

The Golan Heights were intended to be part of the Mandate for Palestine, but due to British and French machination they were excluded in 1922 and the area was recognized as falling under the Mandate for Syria in contravention to article 5 of the Mandate for Palestine which stipulated that ". . . no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign power." Syria, controlled the Golan Height only for 21 years (1946-1967); from 1948 until 1967, Syria would use its vantage point to attack Israeli villages in the Galilee region. In June 1967, Israeli forces captured the Golan Heights in the Six-Day War and Israeli military law was subsequently applied to the region. In 1981, Israel passed the Golan Heights Law extending Israeli law and administration throughout the territory. Know that Israel’s connection to the Golan Heights is traced back to the Bible. The Golan is the biblical Bashan. In Deuteronomy 4:43, it says, “Ramoth in Gilead, for the Gadites; and Golan in Bashan, for the Manassites," one of the Tribes of Israel.

One part of the information you forgot before UK gave up Palestine. That Eastern Europeans(Trained and Supported by UK and USA) was shipped in by UK and USA.

At the 3:27 point in the video you refer to "1967 borders", however, these were not borders but rather armistice lines from the end of the 1948 war. As you mentioned earlier in your video, in 1948 all of the Arab League countries rejected the UN partition plan, and launched a war to destroy the new Jewish state. Between 1948 and 1967, none of the Arab countries was willing to recognize the State of Israel based on these armistice lines. In those years, the Gaza Strip was governed by Egypt, and the West Bank and East Jerusalem were annexed by Jordan (an annexation not recognized by any country other than the UK).

You say this is a very complex issue. It is not. Only those who are complicit secretly with Israel call it complex to bury the truth and justice around the issue.

i always hate western framing of the colonization of Palestine, "the united nations decided that the territory should be partitioned between its Jewish and Palestinian arab inhabitants" next time maybe don't fail to mention the fact that the vast majority of the Jewish inhabitants were European settler colonists. imagine if the UN partitioned India between British and indian inhabitants and gave most of India to the British that is what happened to palastine.

There was Never any Palestinian Territories other than Gaza, and Areas A and B. There was never any Palestinian state, country, or sovereign nation. Occupation? What is being occupied? ▪︎ The former Ottoman lands? ▪︎The expired British Mandate? ▪︎ The illegally annexed Jordanian land? ▪︎ The land Israel won from Jordan in the Six Day War? What is being occupied?

If only all countries abide by international laws and those who dont would be severely punished by the majority, regardless of which country that is, the world would be a much law abiding place

I would have thought the UN's time would have been better spent reigning in Russia's latest ventures than picking on Israel yet again? Interestingly there are parallels with the current Russia Ukraine war. Israel is fighting to hold onto it's historic identity, its historic lands and religious and culturale identity against the much stronger Arab world whilst Ukraine is fighting for its existence against a much stronger Russia. Palestinians living in the ancient Jewish lands are in my opinion akin to the pro Russian folk in the Donbas. If you don't like it then go live in Russia. Arabs (or whatever), if you dont like where you live... why not move to Arab country etc? That's what I did. Makes more sense than fire bombing. In my opinion the differences between these two peoples too great for there to be a "single state" solution, whilst a "two state solution" won't prevent the hostilities for the same reason.

A question, Professor: Do you think a ruling against Israel (and, more importantly, a choice by Israel to ignore the ruling) would diminish Western support in any way? I can't imagine America would be enthusiastic about any state ignoring the ICJ, but perhaps a blind eye would be turned? I'm a big fan of your videos! Can't wait for the next one!

Yeah as much as I have hope for Palestine it really does sound like a speedbump for Israel while Palestine is that speedbump, how do you feel about this? There's no denying that these two have constantly been at each other's throats since before the times of Roman's. Israelis have nowhere else to go as we see a rise of anti semitic rhetoric in america and Europe has a small facade that covers their seething anti semitism and no one not even other Arab states wants to see a prominent rise of Palestine as a regional power in place of Israel. We gotta kick the can again for another year or so.

Israel's arguments regarding the occupation are made in bad faith. On the international stage, it claims to be a temporary custodian of the occupied territories while a comprehensive peace treaty has not yet emerged. Meanwhile, however, it continues to build Jewish-only settlements in areas claimed by the Palestinians, thus "creating facts on the ground" and foreclosing any possibility of settling the conflict in the future. The Israeli right has grown increasingly extreme in recent years, radicalized by ascendant factions of religious fanatics who believe the Holy Land in its entirety has been given to the Jews by God, such that ceding any parts of it is viewed as sacrilegious and treasonous. And these people wield significant power in the new far-right Israeli government, the most radical since the country's establishment 75 years ago. This, as well as a list of other factors, makes an explosion in the Palestinian arena highly likely practically any moment, which doubtlessly will influence the conclusions reached by the court.

The only thing you said in our erudite analysis that I potentially would disagree to is that it is a complex issue. It is an extremely simple issue of illegal occupation and engineering of demography. Chomsky said as much. It is the Israelis who try to obfuscate the issue and make it sound intolerably complicated. There is no complexity in this at all.

Free Palestine

So good. It’s so good. So good. 👏

Thus it can be said might is right .

Annexation is all the rage nower days, just hope Israel gets the same heat the "other" country did.

happy new year professor. it is, as always, a pleasure to watch your videos and learn. as an Israeli, I welcome this step. Seeing what have become of the west bank and the worsening situation of the Palestinian population under Israeli occupation, especially with the plans the new government is preparing for the Palestinian areas in the west bank in the years to come. however, I believe that this is part of a bigger game. EU and US understood that they can use this as a leverage against the new Israeli government and played that card, allowing this to happen. now they can pick up the phone and say that unless X happens, they would allow the process to continue, and when they will have gotten what they want, the entire thing will drown in paperwork. I wish there was somewhat more effective tool to make the people in Israel understand the reality from a wider perspective (Saudi Arabia seems the most likely "tool" here as if it recognizes Israel in return for the implementation of some piece agreement, it might be too much for any Israeli leadership to ignore). moreover, I invite all, especially Israelis to witness the reality in the west bank, the actual apartheid, the road blocks, the arrests of 7 year old kids as well as 80 year old grandpas, the harassments from the Israeli settlers , with their own eyes. it is worth more than any amount of words I can write. I hope this renewed international attention can be the beginning of what will eventually be the a Palestinian state and an end to the Israeli Arab conflict. having said that, I believe the Palestinians are too divided to actually make this work. if they worked together, they would have a state decades ago.

Professor, why is Judea and Samaria the only 'occupied' land debated in the world while there are so many countries that have illegally and forcefully occupied land? The wall or the barrier was created by Israel is a security barrier against terrorist walking into Israel. Lastly, why did your country the UK gave 70% of the land to the Hashemites while the remaining 30%, the world wants to carve out another country when they refused to divide the remaining 30% in 1947? An opportunity lost. Logically and fairly speaking, the 70% should be divided into half for the so-called Palestinians.

One of the better analysis but still flawed in several important ways. Moral victories count for nothing and Israel knows that better than anyone. The UN would have more credibility if it wasn't so worthless. The UN is really little more than a platform for airing grievances and a funnel for wealth re-distribution but it accomplishes next to nothing in resolving real world political conflict (as its dismal record clearly shows). Your analysis is spot-on regarding the effects of an International Court ruling. You are a rare bird, while neither side is keen on listening to the opposing side of the argument, your reasoning is so sound that any participant has to at least listen to your comments and consider them.

Free palestine from greece🇬🇷

"between the two countries" Palestine isn't a country. Even if it were a partially recognized state it has no effective self-government and is incapable of self-government. Palestine isn't even a de facto state. Taiwan is a good example of a de facto state. Palestine has partial de jure recognition but lacks one of the defining elements of international legal personality: the capacity to self-govern and engage in effective foreign relations because you can't engage in foreign relations when you are not de jure recognized by around 1/3 of the planet.

I don't understand why UN, and some other Countries are always against the people of GOD Israeli (the whole world knows the truth, every tribe every Religion they have their own country and freely enjoying the best,,, So let the Israeli also they have all their Right 👍

Jeremiah 4:20 My people are fools, they do not know Me! They are senseless children they have no understanding.

👋 اجمل 🌹 من ❤ اجمل 🌹

Do you consider the French resistance in WW2 fighting back against Nazi occupiers as 'terrorists' as you have labelled Palestinians fighting back against Zionist occupiers? I guess not.

The Israel-Palestinian conflict is not complex. That's a trope peddled by the Israel Lobby.

So, what makes a settler colony a settler colony? ..... Simply put: all settler colonies constitute a continuous process of land annexation, whereby native inhabitants are removed and settlers from elsewhere are brought to occupy the land. To be sure, all modern nation-states have annexed land in certain respects, but the settler-colonial state’s distinguishing feature is that it does not come into being and cannot continue to exist without claiming sovereignty over land that is forcefully taken from its native inhabitants. In short, the settler colony can only claim its sovereignty through the eradication and erasure of native sovereignty.