[wat0n]

I've edited my post to explain. I'm impatient though because I'm really tired of having to repeat this stuff. Everyone knows this stuff already except Israelis apparently.

I used to think that Israel was doing this nonsense against Iran because they had some kind of nefarious agenda that needed to be figured out, but then looking at Netanyahu, I realise now that he's actually just irrational. Netanyahu is the kind of guy who would oppose Iran even if Iran's leadership were literally a collection of CIA plants.

Maybe, maybe he has an electoral strategy of using Iran as a bogey-man. Or maybe he doesn't really think Iran would become neutral or pro-Western if the deal was signed. Or maybe he thinks Iran would try to fight Israel through its proxies more intensely if it went nuclear.

Personally, I don't think a nuclear Iran is the end of the world from an Israeli perspective. It might even be in its long-term strategic interest under the right conditions (conditions I'm sure you won't like for ideological reasons).

[Rei Murasame]

Maybe, maybe he has an electoral strategy of using Iran as a bogey-man.

That's possible, but if it were an electoral strategy then he wouldn't be going so far as to take it o Washington and actually make NATO leaders upset with him. He'd have stuck to just making speeches if he really viewed it as an electoral strategy.

Or, there is the possibility that Netanyahu is playing everyone and that his opposition to the deal is all part of the act in order to make sure that the Iranian bourgeoisie isn't being given 'the kiss of death'. After all, if Netanyahu didn't complain then it would look like the Iranian bourgeoisie is either being complicit with NATO or has been forced to concede to NATO because of sanctions and because of the simultaneous unravelling of the 'axis of resistance'.

So there is the possibility that in order to make this deal look like something that it isn't, Netanyahu must be seen to be complaining about it, so that the Iranian public would never be aware that they've been totally conned.

This is just my guess, however. My guess being that basically if it's not Netanyahu being stupid, then I would think it's part of some kind of act they are deliberately putting on. But Obama will need to get this done before he leaves office, so that the next president can 'blame' it on him and say that it is 'undoable' if they need to coddle the American public.

Or maybe he doesn't really think Iran would become neutral or pro-Western if the deal was signed.

Which would be surprising, since I'm sure he's seen the profiles of the people who are presently in the Iranian government, and he's seen the reports on phenomenon of the 'Black Shia', and how they basically sold off the state assets into the hands of cronies who pursued a market fundamentalist approach to the economy and that is how they ended up here, trying to make the deal which is now happening.

Because they want to survive, and the other options - expansion through the Shia crescent and the axis of resistance, has been cut off by the rise of the FSA, Al-Nusra, and ISIL, which broke the chain between Iran and Syria right at a crucial moment. So this is a sort of lucky chance that possibly won't come very often for NATO.

Or maybe he thinks Iran would try to fight Israel through its proxies more intensely if it went nuclear.

But he shouldn't be thinking that, since they're busy in Iraq and Syria exchanging gunfire with the Sunnis.

[Rich]

Israel doesn't serve western interests. The West serves Israel's interests, although the West is never sufficiently subservient to Israel's whims to satisfy the hard core Jewish supremacists. Israel is not the only force seeking to control and manipulate the West, it is just the most successful. Saudi, Pakistan and the other Muslim terrorist states also seek to control and manipulate the West. Both the Saudis and the Israelis like Al Qaeda and the Islamic state. But like latter day Goldilocks they like their ISIS porridge not too hot not too cold. The great bogey man ISIS diverts, criticism away from both Saudi and Israel and binds the West to them. Russia is a useful diversion when the Saudi and the Israelis want to divert attention away form the Middle East. remember they don't want to destroy the Islamic State just use it as a means to suing the West for police the Middle East on their behalf.

We face two great perils Islam and China. those are the threats we should focus on. There are dark forces at work in the West that seek to bring us into confrontation with Russia. They do not have our best interests at heart.

Rei is happy to jump on the Israeli Saudi Muslim agenda because she sees it as a chance to weaken Russia. She's even happy to let go her opposition to mass Muslim immigration not Europe, anything that gets in the way of The West's meddling in Russia. This is all quite attractive to a lot of westerners because it allows them to portray their cowardly unwillingness to confront Islam as a brave principle stand against Russia. Lets remember its not Russians that are gang raping our children and prostituting them. its not Russians that are shooting up our journalists, blowing up our underground trains and cutting off our soldiers heads in the local high streets. Its not Russians who are turning large parts of our cities into no go areas.

[Rei Murasame]

There are dark forces at work in the West that seek to bring us into confrontation with Russia. They do not have our best interests at heart.

What do you mean by 'our'?

Rei is happy to jump on the Israeli Saudi Muslim agenda because she sees it as a chance to weaken Russia. She's even happy to let go her opposition to mass Muslim immigration not Europe, anything that gets in the way of The West's meddling in Russia.

Well, can you give me a good reason why not? You're just upset because I'm always ahead of the curve. I know how people are, and so I endorse whatever strategy will produce the correct result.

This is all quite attractive to a lot of westerners because it allows them to portray their cowardly unwillingness to confront Islam as a brave principle stand against Russia. Lets remember its not Russians that are gang raping our children and prostituting them. its not Russians that are shooting up our journalists, blowing up our underground trains and cutting off our soldiers heads in the local high streets. Its not Russians who are turning large parts of our cities into no go areas.

Do you think anyone in the west has that kind of foresight? You are in the wrong region of the world for that kind of rhetoric, I think you'd do great in Russia, but otherwise you are wasting time.

The only way that the west is going to be fighting Islam inside Europe is through the intelligence services and through a future 'Operation Gladio Part C' or something like that. There will be no anti-Islam demonstration that will do it, there will be no popular uprising, because the general population unfortunately actually loves Muslims and loves Muslim immigration.

As counter-intuitive as it may sound, if you want to oppose Islam, and oppose Russia at the same time, you should stand with the NATO establishment's right wing in the deep state. Otherwise, get out and go to Russia with very 'consistent' and 'principled' Russian losers who are going to lose.

The way to manipulate and beat Muslims in Europe is through subterfuge, not through head-on confrontation.

[wat0n]

That's possible, but if it were an electoral strategy then he wouldn't be going so far as to take it o Washington and actually make NATO leaders upset with him. He'd have stuck to just making speeches if he really viewed it as an electoral strategy.

It may not be only his strategy, but also of the GOP.

Or, there is the possibility that Netanyahu is playing everyone and that his opposition to the deal is all part of the act in order to make sure that the Iranian bourgeoisie isn't being given 'the kiss of death'. After all, if Netanyahu didn't complain then it would look like the Iranian bourgeoisie is either being complicit with NATO or has been forced to concede to NATO because of sanctions and because of the simultaneous unravelling of the 'axis of resistance'.

So there is the possibility that in order to make this deal look like something that it isn't, Netanyahu must be seen to be complaining about it, so that the Iranian public would never be aware that they've been totally conned.

This is just my guess, however. My guess being that basically if it's not Netanyahu being stupid, then I would think it's part of some kind of act they are deliberately putting on. But Obama will need to get this done before he leaves office, so that the next president can 'blame' it on him and say that it is 'undoable' if they need to coddle the American public.

That is possible too.

Which would be surprising, since I'm sure he's seen the profiles of the people who are presently in the Iranian government, and he's seen the reports on phenomenon of the 'Black Shia', and how they basically sold off the state assets into the hands of cronies who pursued a market fundamentalist approach to the economy and that is how they ended up here, trying to make the deal which is now happening.

Meh, the prior status quo was pretty inefficient for the Iranian economy.

Because they want to survive, and the other options - expansion through the Shia crescent and the axis of resistance, has been cut off by the rise of the FSA, Al-Nusra, and ISIL, which broke the chain between Iran and Syria right at a crucial moment. So this is a sort of lucky chance that possibly won't come very often for NATO.

Indeed, this is correct. But this is the gist of the whole thing with regards to Israel (see below).

But he shouldn't be thinking that, since they're busy in Iraq and Syria exchanging gunfire with the Sunnis.

Indeed, but sooner or later that'll be sorted out. So, unless the pro-Iranians end up severely weakened, Israel would be definitely in trouble in the long run.

And that, is the key issue I think. States don't nuke other nuclear states, but fight each other with proxies - were Assad to fall or be severely weakened to the point of permanently losing control over much of the region we currently call "Syria", a nuclear Iran would not be really as troublesome for Israel as it would be harder for them to fight Israel through proxies in this scenario. In fact, it may even become advantageous for Israel as Iran would fight Sunni Arabs elsewhere instead.

But, is Netanyahu willing to bet on that possibility? And, as importantly, who would replace Assad as a power-broker in that area of the Levant if Assad loses such hability for good? Would this new power-broker fight the Israelis?

Personally, I think a nuclear Iran is inevitable, and if it is, if Israel is smart it'll work hard to make sure Iran won't reach it's northern border.

[Rei Murasame]

As 'bad' as this will sound, I would suggest that the Israelis should look into locking down Lebanon 'by proxy' since Syria is not able to exert the level of influence it used to exert there anymore and Hezbollah is weakened from all the fighting. Basically they could look into going the long way around, and asking NATO for a sort of backchannel arrangement where NATO will help the Druze and the Maronite Christians to fill more seats of power there and they could then act as a deterrent against these concerns.

And Israelis would then be able to relax.

I'm sure that Rich will criticise this suggestion as well since he will say that I've gone from appreciating Hezbollah to now wanting to put Hezbollah under the bus and drive over them, but again, this is what happens when you have to come up with ideas for the world on this side of the wardrobe which change with the circumstances, rather than ideas for a totally static Narnia.

[wat0n]

As 'bad' as this will sound, I would suggest that the Israelis should look into locking down Lebanon 'by proxy' since Syria is not able to exert the level of influence it used to exert there anymore and Hezbollah is weakened from all the fighting. Basically they could look into going the long way around, and asking NATO for a sort of backchannel arrangement where NATO will help the Druze and the Maronite Christians to fill more seats of power there and they could then act as a deterrent against these concerns.

And Israelis would then be able to relax.

I'm sure that Rich will criticise this suggestion as well since he will say that I've gone from appreciating Hezbollah to now wanting to put Hezbollah under the bus and drive over them, but again, this is what happens when you have to come up with ideas for the world on this side of the wardrobe which change with the circumstances, rather than ideas for a totally static Narnia.

I'm not sure if Hezbollah has been weakened enough for that to happen. But yeah, if it continues to fight in Syria, if the civil war there drags on, in the long run they will.

In the end of the day, I think you realize that NATO needs to engage in an off-shore balancing strategy. Typical British stuff

[Rich]

Do you think anyone in the west has that kind of foresight? You are in the wrong region of the world for that kind of rhetoric, I think you'd do great in Russia, but otherwise you are wasting time.

I'm hardly pro Putin's policies. I would support an immediate Romanian annexation of the West bank of the Dnieper. I would support a German invasion and annexation of Kalingrad. I'd even support Ukraine coming into the EU and NATO once shorne of its southern and Eastern territories. It takes two to tango and both the West and Putin contribute to these frozen conflicts.

Optimism is one thing, insanity another. Ukraine is never going to integrate its Eastern territories into a truly united and patriotic Ukraine. Give them a hundred years without Russian involvement and they might have pulled it off. Gradually dissolved the Easterners Russian identity. But in the real world they are leading their country to destruction. Ukrainian nationalists have had enough opportunity to observe the West's modus operandi. Western leaders are very good at shouting their mouths off. Very good at sound bites. Very good at bravado, but they never have the stomach, attention span or focus for a long fight. Ukrainians should have sought to lose as much territory to Russia as possible.

[Tailz]

You obviously don't mean Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, who are as Israeli as Ban Ki-moon is? :?:

As Israeli as Ban Ki-moon? This is a curious dilemma, for a native people to be claimed to be foreign interlopers by a society setup by a movement of foreign immigrants. It's like American's claiming native American Indians are not American enough, or Australian's claiming Aborigines are not Australian enough.

The curious condition of the Palestinian to the Israeli, a people who's presence pre-dates the arrival of European Zionists, now seen as a foreign people.

[wat0n]

As Israeli as Ban Ki-moon? This is a curious dilemma, for a native people to be claimed to be foreign interlopers by a society setup by a movement of foreign immigrants. It's like American's claiming native American Indians are not American enough, or Australian's claiming Aborigines are not Australian enough.

The curious condition of the Palestinian to the Israeli, a people who's presence pre-dates the arrival of European Zionists, now seen as a foreign people.

...Including by themselves, just like Native Americans didn't consider themselves as being part of the US until long after the American Revolution.

I don't think I said they were foreign, though. I only said they aren't Israelis.

[Tailz]

Tailz wrote: As Israeli as Ban Ki-moon? This is a curious dilemma, for a native people to be claimed to be foreign interlopers by a society setup by a movement of foreign immigrants. It's like American's claiming native American Indians are not American enough, or Australian's claiming Aborigines are not Australian enough.

The curious condition of the Palestinian to the Israeli, a people who's presence pre-dates the arrival of European Zionists, now seen as a foreign people.

...Including by themselves, just like Native Americans didn't consider themselves as being part of the US until long after the American Revolution.

Indeed, if I moved into your homeland and setup an Artists Only Colony over where you live. Then wrote your not Artistic enough to really be considered a part of Artist Land. I too would be hinting at - with weasel words - that you are a foreigner or don't belong to our new artists utopia. While you would not consider yourself to be a part of this new Artists Utopia, instead thinking your a part of the original social and political fabric that existed before the dreaded Artists invasion. Just as many Australian Aborigines, Native American Indians, and Palestinians think they are.

I don't think I said they were foreign, though. I only said they aren't Israelis.

Weasel words, by writing their not Israeli enough - that they therefor don't belong in Israel. You are writing that they are foreigners in Israel - a social and political construct which makes them foreigners to where they have lived all their lives.

[wat0n]

Indeed, if I moved into your homeland and setup an Artists Only Colony over where you live. Then wrote your not Artistic enough to really be considered a part of Artist Land. I too would be hinting at - with weasel words - that you are a foreigner or don't belong to our new artists utopia.

Sure, and probably those artists would also say I'm not part of it either. Especially if I show no willingness to join it.

Weasel words, by writing their not Israeli enough - that they therefor don't belong in Israel. You are writing that they are foreigners in Israel - a social and political construct which makes them foreigners to where they have lived all their lives.

And one in which most of those who belong to it have also lived in all their lives. Oh but wait a second, actually Palestinians do have one construct they call home, or so I'm supposed to believe since people label it as Occupied Palestinian Territories.

But I suppose that in your limited logic land cannot divided and new societies and states cannot arise.

[redcarpet]

Comparing the treatment of the I/P conflict shows more emphasis. The occupation of the Pal. Territories isn't the only occupation in the world. And yet gets way more media & political coverage.

[GandalfTheGrey]

Lolwat?

You just prove my point - Erdogan is basically gloating over the fact that they are not democratic like Europe, and that there's not a damn thing they can do about it. The contrast with Israel couldn't be more stark - where Israeli leaders are constantly tripping over themselves to point out to the west "hey, we're just like you" - and indeed "we *ARE* you".

No, the Palestinians are not "part" of the Israeli population. They don't want to be part of Israel, the Israelis don't consider them to be part of their population and even the international community doesn't consider them to be Israelis either. It's also quite convinient to whine about Israeli building in occupied land yet at the same time claim that it is basically Israeli territory - you can't have your cake and eat it too.

You miss the point. Its not what the Palestinians want - who are effectively voiceless by virtue of the occupation - its what Israel insists is the reality; and that is that the state of Israel incorporates all of the West Bank. They clearly want the best of both worlds - sovereignty over the land, but with no responsibility over the people who live there (except for their own settlers of course). Sorry, but international law specifically forbids this behaviour. The occupied Palestinians are part of Israel - based on what Israel keeps insisting to everyone. An admission by Israel that they are merely occupying the land will be an effective admission that one day they plan to withdraw - but everyone knows they intend no such thing.

[wat0n]

You just prove my point - Erdogan is basically gloating over the fact that they are not democratic like Europe, and that there's not a damn thing they can do about it. The contrast with Israel couldn't be more stark - where Israeli leaders are constantly tripping over themselves to point out to the west "hey, we're just like you" - and indeed "we *ARE* you".

Is he? If anything, he's criticizing the Europeans for not living up to their stated ideals, and denying he is not a democrat.

You miss the point. Its not what the Palestinians want

Of course it is. Their wishes should be respected, and most don't want to be part of Israel in any shape or form.

- who are effectively voiceless by virtue of the occupation - its what Israel insists is the reality; and that is that the state of Israel incorporates all of the West Bank. They clearly want the best of both worlds - sovereignty over the land, but with no responsibility over the people who live there (except for their own settlers of course). Sorry, but international law specifically forbids this behaviour. The occupied Palestinians are part of Israel - based on what Israel keeps insisting to everyone. An admission by Israel that they are merely occupying the land will be an effective admission that one day they plan to withdraw - but everyone knows they intend no such thing.

Unlike the case of Jerusalem, Israel doesn't claim to be the sovereign over the West Bank. If it did, it'd have annexed it already - just as it did with regards to Jerusalem.

In fact, the Israeli courts consider it to be under occupation for all legal purposes.

[GandalfTheGrey]

Unlike the case of Jerusalem, Israel doesn't claim to be the sovereign over the West Bank. If it did, it'd have annexed it already - just as it did with regards to Jerusalem.

In fact, the Israeli courts consider it to be under occupation for all legal purposes.

Don't be disingenuous, the entire West Bank has to all intents and purposes been annexed already - by virtue of very strategical and carefully planned settlement and settlement boundary creation. Even if you discount the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians under what is openly declared as Israeli sovereign territory in East Jerusalem and the 60% of the WB under the so-called "Area C" - it is quite simply a joke to claim that Israel has not created a reality by which they also have effective control (and therefore sovereignty) over the rest of Palestine.

Says BTSelem:

Contrary to their express purpose, the Oslo Accords have actually enabled Israel to cement its control over the entire West Bank, use it for its own purposes and influence significant aspects of the daily lives of its Palestinian residents.

How? Control of the West Bank was to be split for an interim period, planned to last five years until a permanent agreement was signed: about 40% of the West Bank were defined as Areas A and B and handed over to the Palestinian Authority for its full or partial control. This land was mostly built-up Palestinian areas and already home to the vast majority of the Palestinian population. Israel retained full control of the remaining 60% of the West Bank, Area C, which included all settlement areas.

Areas A and B, the lands handed over to the Palestinian Authority, are not contiguous; they are made up of nearly 170 “islands” surrounded by land designated Area C. Consequently, although the vast majority of the Palestinian residents of the West Bank live in Areas A and B, all the land reserves required for developing their communities remain in Area C, including many lands that were once within the municipal jurisdiction of these communities, some of them privately owned. Any use of these lands for expanding communities in Areas A and B or for building industrial plants, laying down water pipes or roads, is subject to Israeli approval, which is, for the most part, withheld.

Israel also continues to exercise individual control over each and every resident of the West Bank, despite their ostensible status as subject to the Palestinian Authority. In order for Palestinians to get from one city to another or from one area to another, they must pass through areas that are under full Israeli control, meaning that they must come into contact with Israeli security forces. These forces often make incursions into Areas A and B, mostly in coordination and cooperation with the Palestinian Authority. Israel also continues to control the population registry and to decide who is considered a resident of the West Bank. It has also retained the military legal system in the West Bank, trying thousands of Palestinians – including residents of Areas A and B – in military courts each year. In addition, no Palestinian resident of the West Bank may travel abroad without Israeli approval nor may foreign nationals enter the West Bank without Israeli permission. The Israeli authorities are authorized to arrest and deport them, even if they are in Areas A and B.

http://www.btselem.org/publications/47_ ... occupation

But I'll humour you: lets for a moment live in the fantasy land that Areas A and B are sovereign Palestinian territory of which Israel has no responsibility pertaining to the human rights of the population there. We are then left with some 200 thousand people (according to BTSelem) in Area C who are living in what is openly declared by Israel as sovereign Israeli territory. Quoting BTSelem again:

Israel treats Area C as if its sole purpose is to serve its needs alone, completely ignoring the temporary nature of the agreement. Israel has used this territory to expand the settlements, and their population has more than tripled since the Accords were signed. At the same time, it does not consider itself obligated in any way to the estimated 200,000-300,000 Palestinians living in this area.

Thus my original point - that these people who are systematically denied their human rights are very much a "part" of Israeli society - as part of a population that is openly stated as part of Israeli sovereign territory. How can it be argued otherwise?

[wat0n]

Don't be disingenuous, the entire West Bank has to all intents and purposes been annexed already - by virtue of very strategical and carefully planned settlement and settlement boundary creation. Even if you discount the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians under what is openly declared as Israeli sovereign territory in East Jerusalem and the 60% of the WB under the so-called "Area C" - it is quite simply a joke to claim that Israel has not created a reality by which they also have effective control (and therefore sovereignty) over the rest of Palestine.

And here's the reason of why you are wrong.

Do you know what makes a military occupation an occupation? Wanna guess? Let's ask the good old Fourth Hague Convention of 1907!

SECTION III
MILITARY AUTHORITY OVER THE TERRITORY
OF THE HOSTILE STATE
Art. 42.

Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.

The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

Oslo notwithstanding, Israel exercises its military authority over the complete West Bank because 1) as you said, the Oslo Agreements allow it to send soldiers wherever it wants and, much more importantly, 2) even if the PA doesn't want it, Israel can send its soldiers to any parts of the West Bank quickly and with few casualties (unlike say, Gaza, where it takes weeks for them to get there while facing a low bodycount).

Yet, occupiers are not the sovereign of the territories under their occupation, which is why they are currently barred from, say, sending their own population to settle them.

Thus my original point - that these people who are systematically denied their human rights are very much a "part" of Israeli society - as part of a population that is openly stated as part of Israeli sovereign territory. How can it be argued otherwise?

They are such a part of Israeli society, that not only Palestinians cannot enter Israel freely but also Israelis cannot roam the West Bank freely either (Israeli citizens are barred from Area A without a special permit).

They are part of Israeli society in the same way Iraqis were part of American society while the US had the country under occupation: After all, the US also exercised military control over Iraq since it was under American occupation and ruled by an American puppet, right?

[GandalfTheGrey]

They are such a part of Israeli society, that not only Palestinians cannot enter Israel freely

Thanks for proving my point.

also Israelis cannot roam the West Bank freely either (Israeli citizens are barred from Area A without a special permit).

So what? I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be allowed to "roam freely" around our nuclear facility, and probably a thousand other areas within my own country either. I dare say there are plenty of areas inside "Israel proper" that Israeli citizens are not allowed to roam freely around either. And yet its Israel who is transplanting hundreds of thousands of its citizens onto the west bank - I'm not aware of the Palestinians transplanting any of their people (I can't even call them citizens - how sad) into Tel Aviv - complete with Palestinian only roads, and bulldozing Israeli farms to make room for the settlements.

They are part of Israeli society in the same way Iraqis were part of American society while the US had the country under occupation: After all, the US also exercised military control over Iraq since it was under American occupation and ruled by an American puppet, right?

Yes or no Waton - the official Israeli position is that *ALL* of Jerusalem is part of Israel? We both know the answer, but I just want to hear you say it. Once you acknowledge the truth here, I then want you to consider the rights of the non-Israeli occupants of that city. For even if you somehow reject the "facts on the ground" pertaining to the rest of the WB, on this point you simply have no argument to make - Jerusalem is officially Israel's capital, and there is not "east" or "west" part, and definitely no non-Israeli residents who are accepted as part of Israeli society - no?

[wat0n]

Thanks for proving my point.

In which way was your point proven, I wonder?

You do realize that in any event they don't enter en masse to Israel?

So what? I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be allowed to "roam freely" around our nuclear facility, and probably a thousand other areas within my own country either. I dare say there are plenty of areas inside "Israel proper" that Israeli citizens are not allowed to roam freely around either. And yet its Israel who is transplanting hundreds of thousands of its citizens onto the west bank - I'm not aware of the Palestinians transplanting any of their people (I can't even call them citizens - how sad) into Tel Aviv - complete with Palestinian only roads, and bulldozing Israeli farms to make room for the settlements.

So what? It shows that Israelis cannot enter Palestinian cities, as opposed to military bases, freely. Just like Palestinians cannot enter Israeli cities freely either.

Yes or no Waton - the official Israeli position is that *ALL* of Jerusalem is part of Israel? We both know the answer, but I just want to hear you say it. Once you acknowledge the truth here, I then want you to consider the rights of the non-Israeli occupants of that city. For even if you somehow reject the "facts on the ground" pertaining to the rest of the WB, on this point you simply have no argument to make - Jerusalem is officially Israel's capital, and there is not "east" or "west" part, and definitely no non-Israeli residents who are accepted as part of Israeli society - no?

Actually they are, they have access to all social services, for example, if they want. They can also ask for Israeli nationality if they wish, though so far most have not wanted to and thus don't ask for it, even if this seems to be changing.

If the non-Israelis in Jerusalem don't join Israeli society it isn't because they can't but because they don't want to. You really have no idea of what you are talking about, this is a potentially explosive issue for the Palestinians.

[GandalfTheGrey]

In which way was your point proven, I wonder?

Palestinians have no or few rights to freely travel in Israel as an Israeli citizen would, despite the fact that they are living inside borders that are under effective control of the Israeli government.

So what? It shows that Israelis cannot enter Palestinian cities, as opposed to military bases, freely. Just like Palestinians cannot enter Israeli cities freely either.

A terrible comparison to try and explain away the fact that Palestinians are prisoners in their own country - while Israelis are not.

Actually they are, they have access to all social services, for example, if they want. They can also ask for Israeli nationality if they wish, though so far most have not wanted to and thus don't ask for it, even if this seems to be changing.

If the non-Israelis in Jerusalem don't join Israeli society it isn't because they can't but because they don't want to. You really have no idea of what you are talking about, this is a potentially explosive issue for the Palestinians.

From your source:

East Jerusalem Palestinians face arbitrary threats of home demolition orders in Silwan and other neighborhoods, the continued infiltration of settlers, harassment at Ben Gurion Airport, the difficulty of obtaining building permits, a deteriorating infrastructure in Palestinian neighborhoods, and unequal distribution and allocation of budget and resources in developing Palestinian areas. These factors have led people to feel that an Israeli passport may provide some measure of improvement in their lives. Most of all, they hope it will safeguard them against displacement from property, from the land and from the city that they call home.

And according to another source, only about 1/3 of applications are approved.

So basically, if you are an East Jerusalem Palestinian, you are subject to harassment, government discrimination in terms of building permits, neighbourhood infrastructure and allocation of resources - but if you want to remediate this by applying for citizenship, chances are your application will be rejected.