Israel has ‘weaned off' idea of two-state solution with Palestine following Oct 7 atrocities
'For obvious reasons, but mainly because of Palestinian rejectionism of previous offers, plus the bloody responses that come through those offers, mainly the second intifada, and obviously October 7, the Israeli public has unfortunately been weaned off the idea that there is a partner for peace,' Mr Burnie told Sky News Senior Reporter Caroline Marcus.
'The idea of somehow recognising that the two-state solution is the ultimate aim, but that caveat is, is that it would require deep modification and the removal of the corruption of the Palestinian Authority.
'The Palestinian Authority… is currently paying the stipends of Hamas terrorists who entered Israel on October 7, there is significant change that is required within the Palestinian political society.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
17 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Segal's antisemitism plan takes us down a path we should fear to tread
This week, the federal government joined 27 other nations in condemning Israel's 'drip-feeding of aid and the inhumane killing of civilians, including children, seeking to meet their most basic need of water and food'. That same government's own antisemitism envoy, Jillian Segal, also published a report which proposed that universities, arts organisations and perhaps even public broadcasters should have funding stripped if they 'engage in or facilitate antisemitism'. This raises a question: if the words of the Australian government came instead from an academic, or artist at a festival, would it risk their public funding? The government is making grave allegations against Israel – ones that enrage its Israeli and American counterparts. It's possible some people could misuse those allegations to bolster their hatred of Jews, especially in the cesspit of social media. Could the government's words be taken to 'facilitate antisemitism' under their own envoy's plan? Personally, I think not. Trump and Netanyahu might disagree. And that's a worry. The definition of antisemitism Segal wants used to determine when institutions fall foul of it – drafted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance – states 'criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic'. Accordingly, those suggesting the envoy's report condemns all criticism of Israel as antisemitism overstate the position. But the trouble is it's very difficult to know by how far. By what criteria, exactly, is someone to determine when anti-Israeli commentary becomes antisemitic? It's a crucial question when you're specifically proposing to make research grants terminable if the academic receiving those funds 'engages in antisemitic … speech or actions'. Or when you propose to strip charities of their tax deductibility if they 'promote speakers' who 'promote antisemitism'. Define this too broadly and you silence perfectly legitimate debate. Define it too narrowly, and these proposals have no purpose at all. Either way, it would need to be defined extremely clearly. The IHRA definition doesn't quite match this brief in two ways. Firstly, it is deliberately drafted vaguely because it describes itself merely as a working definition: guiding, illustrative and non-binding. Its drafters intended it more for the purposes of data collection than meting out punishment: a filter, not a sword. Loading Secondly, the illustrative examples attached to the definition, which outline the kinds of criticisms of Israel that would amount to antisemitism, were not unanimously adopted by those drafting it. One drafter, Antony Lerman, recalls there was so much disagreement about them that they were severed from the part of the definition to be formally adopted, to obtain a consensus. That's significant because it is in the examples that most of the controversy resides. It leaves a breach, now flooded by the most febrile cacophony, largely because this has become a contest to draw sharp lines to define something that simply cannot be defined that way. Take one common example, most recently reiterated by the chair of one of Australia's most influential Jewish advocacy organisations: that it is antisemitic, amounting to a 'blood libel', to accuse Israel of genocide. Fine, if the allegation rests on some trope that Jews by their nature delight in slaughtering children and are merely searching for an excuse to do so. Or if the accusation is so wildly fanciful that only the most prejudiced, conspiratorial mind could entertain it.
The Age
17 minutes ago
- The Age
Segal's antisemitism plan takes us down a path we should fear to tread
This week, the federal government joined 27 other nations in condemning Israel's 'drip-feeding of aid and the inhumane killing of civilians, including children, seeking to meet their most basic need of water and food'. That same government's own antisemitism envoy, Jillian Segal, also published a report which proposed that universities, arts organisations and perhaps even public broadcasters should have funding stripped if they 'engage in or facilitate antisemitism'. This raises a question: if the words of the Australian government came instead from an academic, or artist at a festival, would it risk their public funding? The government is making grave allegations against Israel – ones that enrage its Israeli and American counterparts. It's possible some people could misuse those allegations to bolster their hatred of Jews, especially in the cesspit of social media. Could the government's words be taken to 'facilitate antisemitism' under their own envoy's plan? Personally, I think not. Trump and Netanyahu might disagree. And that's a worry. The definition of antisemitism Segal wants used to determine when institutions fall foul of it – drafted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance – states 'criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic'. Accordingly, those suggesting the envoy's report condemns all criticism of Israel as antisemitism overstate the position. But the trouble is it's very difficult to know by how far. By what criteria, exactly, is someone to determine when anti-Israeli commentary becomes antisemitic? It's a crucial question when you're specifically proposing to make research grants terminable if the academic receiving those funds 'engages in antisemitic … speech or actions'. Or when you propose to strip charities of their tax deductibility if they 'promote speakers' who 'promote antisemitism'. Define this too broadly and you silence perfectly legitimate debate. Define it too narrowly, and these proposals have no purpose at all. Either way, it would need to be defined extremely clearly. The IHRA definition doesn't quite match this brief in two ways. Firstly, it is deliberately drafted vaguely because it describes itself merely as a working definition: guiding, illustrative and non-binding. Its drafters intended it more for the purposes of data collection than meting out punishment: a filter, not a sword. Loading Secondly, the illustrative examples attached to the definition, which outline the kinds of criticisms of Israel that would amount to antisemitism, were not unanimously adopted by those drafting it. One drafter, Antony Lerman, recalls there was so much disagreement about them that they were severed from the part of the definition to be formally adopted, to obtain a consensus. That's significant because it is in the examples that most of the controversy resides. It leaves a breach, now flooded by the most febrile cacophony, largely because this has become a contest to draw sharp lines to define something that simply cannot be defined that way. Take one common example, most recently reiterated by the chair of one of Australia's most influential Jewish advocacy organisations: that it is antisemitic, amounting to a 'blood libel', to accuse Israel of genocide. Fine, if the allegation rests on some trope that Jews by their nature delight in slaughtering children and are merely searching for an excuse to do so. Or if the accusation is so wildly fanciful that only the most prejudiced, conspiratorial mind could entertain it.
News.com.au
11 hours ago
- News.com.au
Hamas says responded to latest Gaza ceasefire proposal
Hamas said on Thursday that it had responded to an Israeli proposal for a 60-day ceasefire in Gaza, as pressure mounted for a breakthrough to end almost two years of devastating conflict that has triggered a humanitarian crisis for civilians. Mediators have been shuttling between Israeli and Hamas negotiators in the Qatari capital Doha for more than two weeks but the indirect talks have so far failed to yield an elusive truce. International criticism is growing over the plight of the more than two million Palestinian civilians in Gaza, where more than 100 aid and rights groups have warned that "mass starvation" is spreading. Palestinian militant group Hamas said in a statement on Telegram that it has "just submitted its response and that of the Palestinian factions to the ceasefire proposal to the mediators". A statement from the office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed it had received the response. "It is currently being evaluated," it added. Hamas's response included proposed amendments to clauses on the entry of aid, maps of areas from which the Israeli army should withdraw, and guarantees on securing a permanent end to the war, according to a Palestinian source familiar with the ongoing talks. Through 21 months of fighting, both sides have clung to long-held positions, preventing two short-lived truces from being converted into a lasting ceasefire. The indirect talks in Doha began on July 6 to try to reach an agreement on a truce deal that would also see the release of Israeli hostages. Of the 251 hostages taken during Hamas's October 2023 attack on Israel that triggered the war, 49 are still being held in Gaza, including 27 the Israeli military says are dead. But the talks have dragged on without a breakthrough, with each side blaming the other for refusing to budge on their key demands. For Israel, dismantling Hamas's military and governing capabilities is non-negotiable, while Hamas demands firm guarantees on a lasting truce, a full withdrawal of Israeli troops and the free flow of aid into Gaza. With pressure for a breakthrough mounting, Washington said top envoy Steve Witkoff will travel to Europe this week for talks on a ceasefire and aid corridor. - 'Risk of famine' - The World Health Organization's chief warned on Wednesday of widespread starvation in Gaza, saying food deliveries into the territory were "far below what is needed for the survival of the population". "A large proportion of the population of Gaza is starving. I don't know what you would call it other than mass starvation -- and it's man-made," Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus told reporters. France warned of a growing "risk of famine" caused by "the blockade imposed by Israel". Israel has rejected accusations that it is responsible for Gaza's deepening hunger crisis, instead accusing Hamas of preventing supplies from being distributed and looting aid for themselves or to sell at inflated prices. Israel has also maintained that it is allowing aid into the Palestinian territory but that international agencies were failing to pick it up for distribution. COGAT, the Israeli defence ministry body overseeing civil affairs in the Palestinian territories, said on Thursday that around 70 food trucks had been unloaded at aid crossings the previous day. "Over 150 were collected by the UN and international organisations from the Gazan side, but over 800 still await pick up," it said in a post on X. Aid agencies have said permissions from Israel are still limited, and coordination to safely move trucks to where they are needed is a major challenge in an active war zone. The health ministry in Hamas-run Gaza said that, in coordination with the UN children's agency UNICEF, trucks carrying medicines and medical supplies were scheduled to enter hospitals on Thursday. Israel's military campaign in Gaza has killed 59,219 Palestinians, mostly civilians, according to the health ministry in the Hamas-run territory. Hamas's October 2023 attack on Israel resulted in the deaths of 1,219 people, most of them civilians, according to an AFP tally based on official figures.
