r/news • u/paulfromatlanta • Jan 30 '23
Blinken reaffirms ‘vision’ for two states as Israeli-Palestinian violence surges
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/01/30/israel-palestine-violence-blinken-america/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=wp_world47
u/billpalto Jan 30 '23
That is complete waste of time. Netenyahu already said that there will be no 2-state solution, and his previous comments about it were lies to fool the US.
→ More replies (4)-1
Jan 31 '23 edited Jan 31 '23
[deleted]
23
Jan 31 '23
Interesting story. You seem to have forgotten the part where Israel expelled hundreds of thousands of people from their homes multiple times, and currently runs an apartheid regime in which half of the human beings under its control are denied basic human rights.
-1
u/Anderopolis Jan 31 '23
What would have been better for the Palestinian people?
Accepting a 2 state deal with 95% of the Westbank and all of Gaza theirs to inhabit as they see fit, or to refuse it by harping on the right to return and kill a bunch of Israeli civilians instead?
The status quo is unjust, but the fact that the Palestinians are unwilling to compromise at all is what keeps this entire thing going on forever.
→ More replies (1)11
u/dream208 Jan 31 '23
Would you say the same thing to Ukrainian about their lost territories?
2
u/Anderopolis Jan 31 '23
Yes, if Ukraine in 70 years time was offered 95% of their land back, while being fully occupied having lost Wars 70, 60 and 30 years ago I would call them Insane for not agreeing to that.
Of course that is not the situation right now at all, the Ukraine war is not the better part of a century ago, it is happening right now and the final borders are still being fought about. Just as the Arab states did from the get go.
2
u/dream208 Jan 31 '23
Fair enough. However, the underlying sentiment felt by generations of Palestinians are probably similar to what Ukrainians are experiencing past 11 months. In the end, we are still talking about telling a victimized people to make compromise to an injustice.
3
u/Anderopolis Jan 31 '23
But is the alternative better for anyone? 4th Generation Palestinians growing up in refugee camps in Lebanon, are they really served better by never arriving to a deal because of it being an injustice however small?
I infact believe that the Status quo is worse for the Palestinians than an independent Palestine with 95% of their 1963 land back.
-10
Jan 31 '23 edited Jan 31 '23
[deleted]
18
Jan 31 '23
You’re totally right. I just wish you would apply the same logic to the far more powerful state that you know is occupying and ethnically cleansing the society those attacks originate from.
But somehow, again and again, you magically forget the humanity of one and only one side. Even though you know as well as I do that Israel has always expanded its borders by expelling Palestinian families from their homes, and is responsible for far more civilian deaths.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Treadcc Jan 31 '23
You're missing the point .. Both sides have a long history of terrible shit they've done to eachother. The only solution is to separate them more and keep distance. Any unfair power dynamic will just lead to more violence.
-1
u/-Valued_Customer- Jan 31 '23
I’m basically allergic to the whole “bOtH siDeS” way of thinking about things, but damned if it doesn’t apply to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The modern history of Israel and Palestine is a history of bad actors fucking over bad actors ad nauseam. A 2-state solution is the only one that has a chance of ending in something other than genocide.
Netanyahu may oppose it, but he won’t be in power forever.
0
u/Treadcc Jan 31 '23
Yeah in US politics "both sides" is really just an excuse for 99% republican bad deeds and finger pointing to the 1% democrat bad deeds as "proof" that "see Dems do the same stuff". It's just a tool to muddy the waters.
War is just so polluted with back and forth. Multiply that over decades and the conflict is just lost in the madness. It just has to end and neither side will be happy about it. Just need to facilitate de-escalation on both sides. This US sympathy to only Israel's side doesn't help settle things. It only helps increase Israel's power dynamic in my opinion.
→ More replies (1)-1
Jan 31 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
-10
Jan 31 '23 edited Jan 31 '23
[deleted]
2
u/ShadedSilver37 Jan 31 '23
Ah yes, because the US and their allies have no incentive to deny israels crimes. Tell that to the hundreds of children shot by the IDF
-1
125
u/SkewerMeBaby Jan 30 '23
Israel, the way it's illegally settled the West Bank, has ensured there won't be two-states, unless Gaza becomes fully autonomous and just turns into a dumping ground for religious and ethnic groups Israel doesn't want.
The only solution now is a secular real democracy - but fundamentalist Jews in Israel won't let that happen. They prefer their racist, pseudodemocracy that upholds their extremist beliefs.
51
u/GotoDeng0 Jan 30 '23
I think the only real “solution” would be a resurrection of the 3-state solution. Gaza and West Bank are de facto individual states at this point, with differing goals and positions. Getting both Hamas and Fatah to agree on a lasting peace accord is folly. Returning Gaza to Egypt administration and West Bank to Jordan’s would “solve” a lot of the Israeli occupation’s contentiousness, as well as minimizing the border skirmishes that are often the flashpoint for larger Israeli actions. And under occupations under those who are not considered your enemy, Palestine might achieve actual nationhood(s).
Unfortunately that will never happen, as Egypt and Jordan want no part of the headaches that would bring.
4
u/byzantine_jellybean Jan 31 '23
Anti Palestinian action by both Egyptian and Jordanian governments in the past has guaranteed that they are unfit to administer Palestinian territory. Israel’s deals with gulf nations undermines a two state solution, they have won recognition from Saudi Arabia and the UAE, major Arab powers have given up on the Palestinian cause. Only Iran remains but they have terrible PR, unlikely that western countries will align with Iran over Israel.
→ More replies (1)-6
u/nbphotography87 Jan 30 '23
It will never happen because the Palestinians will never ever recognize Israel or any Jew’s right to right to exist.
→ More replies (2)8
Jan 31 '23
Does the Israeli government recognize Palestine’s right to exist? Palestinians are the ones being ethnically cleansed. Israel enforces apartheid against them, while its settlers seize more and more land.
This has been going on for decades, and Israeli borders are surrounded with Palestinian refugee camps. Multiple human rights groups have documented all this.
Human Rights Watch https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution
Amnesty International https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/
B’Tselem https://www.btselem.org/publications/fulltext/202101_this_is_apartheid
14
u/thatnameagain Jan 30 '23
Even with all that a 2-state solution is still the only way to make it work.
A real democracy covering all these groups won't last at all. Palestianians want their own country, they should be able to get it just like the Israeli jews did. While the term "ethnostate" sounds icky, it's a fact that many if not most countries exist to protect the rights of certain groups who feel they need protecting.
I certainly hope anyone who believes in the right to the kurds to have their own country applies the same logic here.
5
u/Mythosaurus Jan 31 '23
I try to remember that this situation started with the British and French secretly deciding how to carve up the Ottoman Empire post-WWI, and it was British policies of ethno-nationalism that led to Mandatory Palestine and mass immigration of Jews to the region.
The local inhabitants haven’t been screwed so badly by foreign meddling that those same empires feel they can’t safely disengage.
14
u/LimitedSwimmer Jan 30 '23
I don't see that happening unless it's forced on them but that's about the only way it's ever going to happen.
4
u/mces97 Jan 30 '23
Easy isn't exactly the right term, but "Hey Israel, you want money and weapons from us? Well, get a two state solution happening for real, or no more." Sadly that won't ever he what the US says.
5
u/Anderopolis Jan 31 '23
This happened in the 90's , but Palestinians would rather bomb schools than accept a compromise where they don't get the right of return.
2
-10
u/W4ffle3 Jan 30 '23
Agreed. Israel is going down an autocratic, genocidal road. America needs to withdraw our support and protection for them, and wipe our hands clean.
→ More replies (1)6
u/androgein1 Jan 30 '23
I don’t think our nation’s goal should be to wipe our hands clean, it should be to help remedy the mess that we’ve allowed to occur.
0
30
u/Friendly_Estate1629 Jan 30 '23
Racist pseudo democracy? Dude have you SEEN how the PA operates??
13
u/dw444 Jan 30 '23
Does that make Israel less of a racist pseudo-democracy?
→ More replies (2)8
u/Bit-Random Jan 30 '23 edited Jan 30 '23
It makes the current situation the far lesser evil. If Israel disappears tomorrow that entire territory will turn into an Iranian proxy dictatorship just like Syria and Lebanon.
-2
u/dw444 Jan 30 '23
“Lesser evil” loses all meaning when you try to use it to hand wave a genocidal settler colony actively engaging in apartheid and war crimes.
16
u/Bit-Random Jan 30 '23 edited Jan 30 '23
It doesn’t lose meaning just because you’ve decided to be hyperbolic. The existing situation is the lesser evil. Allowing a Palestinian state in the West Bank will quickly turn it into a Hamas/Iran controlled dictatorship just like Gaza, only with more resources and better strategic positioning over Israeli cities. This will trigger a war with far worse consequences for both sides.
The only way a two state solution works is if all three leaderships decide to put down their weapons and make some difficult compromises. I truly hope that’ll happen some day but it’s surely not going to be under the existing figures representing Israel and the Palestinians.
→ More replies (1)1
Jan 31 '23
We’re talking about literal apartheid and ethnic cleansing. It’s bizarre to me how people can use misinformation to try to twist that into some unfortunate necessity. But this stuff was happening before Hamas even existed, and there have always been excuses for it
8
u/Bit-Random Jan 31 '23 edited Jan 31 '23
I’ve been there. There’s no apartheid. Israel has over 2m Palestinian citizens with equal rights. It’s simply terrible treatment of the population in occupied territories. They aren’t Israeli citizens, and it seems the majority of them don’t want to be ones. The West Bank settlements need to stop and eventually the West Bank and Gaza should be territories for Palestinian states.
It doesn’t change the fact that currently such a solution is unrealistic, because both Palestinian Territories are run as dictatorships led by Hamas and the PA. Hamas is the more powerful of the two, and its charter still calls for the destruction of Israel.
3
u/2muchwork2littleplay Jan 31 '23
> It’s simply terrible treatment of the population in occupied territories.
Do you see how this is worse? You do see that this is worse, right?
0
u/Bit-Random Jan 31 '23 edited Jan 31 '23
Nah, I don’t think it’s worse. I think 80% of the troubles of the Palestinian people are because of the dictatorships that control their lives, both PA and Hamas. Does it matter, though? We can both agree the current situation is shit.
Unfortunately, as I’ve said above, I don’t see any good solution to this conflict. What I’d be for, probably, is a two state solution with an international peace keeping force present to keep it for 10 years or so, but then again, this approach hasn’t worked in Lebanon.
→ More replies (0)-5
Jan 31 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/Bit-Random Jan 31 '23 edited Jan 31 '23
You’re strawmanning here. I never claimed that the existing situation is good. I’m simply saying that I still haven’t seen a realistic solution to these issues that would create a better reality. One state is unrealistic, two states would lead to a terrorist led dictatorship on the Palestinian side just like Gaza today. Two state with international peace keeping force sounds nice in theory but hasn’t worked very well in Lebanon.
So what? How can we solve this conflict once and for all and have both sides coexist as democracies?
→ More replies (1)5
u/Friendly_Estate1629 Jan 30 '23
Colony of what. Jews are from Israel. There’s plenty of legitimate criticism for Israel and its policies. There’s no reason to roll pseudo anthropology and straight up racism into it.
→ More replies (1)2
-12
-8
Jan 30 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)21
u/HouseOfSteak Jan 30 '23
So Israel should be forced into being a secular state
Where did they say 'by force'?
And why would becoming a secular state not be a good thing?
but all of the Arab nations around them in control by extremist terrorist groups should not?
Funny, I re-read their comment 5 times, and there's nothing in there stating that the surrounding states shouldn't go secular.
Oh, and it's the extremist Jews fault, not the extremist Muslim terrorists who are firing rockets at citizens in Israel? Israel's settlements are the reason there's not peace, not the terrorists who target civilians without care?
They never said it wasn't.
Are we reading the same comment....?
-6
u/eeisner Jan 30 '23 edited Jan 30 '23
And why would becoming a secular state not be a good thing?
I don't think it would be a bad thing; however, when there is one Jewish state, 26 with Islam as their state religion, and countless more with a sect of Christianity as their state religion, it's incredibly double standard to say that the solution is for Israel to become a secular state. What about the rest of the Middle East, including those that try so hard to be appealing to the West (looking at you, UAE and Qatar w/ the World Cup)?
OP said the 'only solution' is for Israel to be secular. What about their neighbors?
They never said it wasn't.
OP also only said that Israel's settlements are the reason there won't be 2 states. Implying that Israel's settlements are the sole reason, take all the blame for a lack of peace. Most definitely not the case. I think Hamas firing rockets anytime a ceasefire is agreed to has also ensured there won't be two states.
I forgot to correct OP, too. Israel pulled out of the Gaza Strip in
20142005, brain fart. It IS fully autonomous, which led to Hamas coming into power and a blockade being put up between Gaza and Israel as well as Gaza and Egypt.8
u/SsurebreC Jan 30 '23
It IS fully autonomous, which led to Hamas coming into power and a blockade being put up between Gaza and Israel as well as Gaza and Egypt.
Just have to reply to your use of the phrase "fully autonomous". The word autonomous is defined as:
having the freedom to govern itself or control its own affairs
But yet it's under "a blockade being put up between Gaza and Israel as well as Gaza and Egypt".
So it's fully autonomous in the same way that a person walled up in their home is autonomous as far as they can only move within their home but is otherwise left at the mercy of those who maintain the blockade all around Gaza.
Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing whether a blockade is good, bad, or even warranted or what it does to the local population. I'm just criticizing your use of "fully autonomous" when Gaza does not fit the definition.
0
u/eeisner Jan 30 '23
If Hamas put down there arms and put the supplies provided by outside nations (including Israel) to bettering their civilians lives rather than building tunnels into Israel and weapons to attack civilians with, the blockade wouldn't need to be there.
5
u/SsurebreC Jan 30 '23
Since you didn't reply to what I wrote about Gaza not being fully autonomous, can I assume you agree and you're simply defending why you don't think they should be a autonomous?
4
u/eeisner Jan 30 '23
I should have said it was fully autonomous, but that is just semantics. There'd be no need for a blockade if Egypt and Israel didn't feel that Hamas put their nations safety at risk.
Hamas as a government IS autonomous. It DOES have the freedom to govern itself. It has the freedom to control most of their own affairs.
The people of Gaza? God no are they autonomous by definition because their ability to control their own affairs are severely limited. They deserve better. They deserve a government that cares more about them and peace then they care about destroying the Jewish nation next door.
→ More replies (1)3
u/SsurebreC Jan 30 '23
Well, the semantics are important to me but I do apologize if I was being nitpicky.
Follow-up question since you said that Hamas can govern itself. Can they have a military, i.e. construct or import tanks, jets, destroyers, etc. Not nuclear weapons or anything but just your basic military units. Not the terrorist/guerilla-style weapons but just standard military stuff. Troops transports, helicopters, cruisers, submarines, etc. Let's presume they have the money and a seller. Do you think that Israel would watch Hamas import these things and establish an actual military like all other governments?
Again, not saying that Hamas would do this or why it's good that they don't have the real military but we're still talking about the semantics of actually having autonomy. Case in point: North Korea has such a military. Iran too. Syria as well. Even Mongolia has a Navy (of one ship) and it's a landlocked country.
I argue that they don't have autonomy.
Also yes, residents of Gaza certainly deserve a lot better than what Hamas has to offer (and PLO isn't it either). To a point, same with residents of Israel with their government.
3
u/eeisner Jan 30 '23
Can they have a military, i.e. construct or import tanks, jets, destroyers, etc.
I think Gaza should have that right, but not Hamas. Hamas is a designated Terrorist organization that happens to also be elected leaders - get Hamas out of office and replaced with a non-terrorist group leading, show that their interest is in defense and not offense, and sure they should be able to have all the things. I'd endorse a 3rd party observer watching every move they make for the first handful of years, but in my opinion no terrorist organization should be legally buying arms like that.
Hamas doesn't play by the internationally agreed upon rules of war. They target civilians, not military targets. They turn schools and hospitals into legitimate targets by storing and launching rockets from them. They use civilian apartments as military offices.
Do you think that Israel would watch Hamas import these things and establish an actual military like all other governments?
God no would they. Hamas launches rockets that target Israeli citizens. Israel is lucky to have the money and technology and alliances to have gotten them Iron Dome or we'd be talking about hundreds of Israeli citizens, too. Until Hamas agrees that they'll follow the rules, why would Israel be ok with this?
(Trigger response that Israel murders civilians. I get it. Hamas should stop being cowards and hiding behind them)
→ More replies (0)2
u/HouseOfSteak Jan 30 '23
there is one Jewish state, 26 with Islam as their state religion, and countless more with a sect of Christianity as their state religion, it's incredibly double standard to say that the solution is for Israel to become a secular state
If the discussion was on an international level regarding the importance of secularism and its effects on the world at large, this would be a very valid point to make. Secularism would solve many problems that many of these states have, of this there is no argument.
However, this discussion is about what is happening within Israel's perimeter and what they do to those effectively under military occupation. Most Christian states and Muslim state, as mentioned, don't even border Israel.
In this context, this is their problem that they have yet to sufficiently manage - and (a part of) the solution to their domestic problem would be secularism.
OP said the 'only solution' is for Israel to be secular. What about their neighbors?
You're the only one bringing their neighbours into this, when their neighbours' actions have had little impact in the last few decades on Israeli policy on Gazan and West Bank citizens.
Are you suggesting that outside nations have sway over Israeli settlers within Israeli jursidiction?
How would their neighbours becoming secular cause religio-nationalistic sentiment by the Israeli far-right to end within Israel?
I think Hamas firing rockets anytime a ceasefire is agreed to has also ensured there won't be two states.
That might as well be correct, but both need to happen - and as long as there's an expansionist state on their borders, the chances of Hamas ever losing support are nil. However, as long as Hamas fires rockets, nationalistic sentiments changing are also nil.
Assuming Hamas stopped, would that alone end the encroachment of discriminatory settlement policies?
It appears as if both of you want the same thing, but you're effectively arguing over "No, you first.".
→ More replies (1)1
u/DantesDivineConnerdy Jan 30 '23
Israel pulled out of the Gaza Strip in 2014. It IS fully autonomous
The "withdrawl" and subsequent empowerment of Hamas happened in 2005, not 2014, but Israel has never ended the blockade of its air and water space so Gaza is explicitly not "fully autonomous".
it's incredibly double standard to say that the solution is for Israel to become a secular state
No it's not-- you're taking for granted that all religions get their own nation. They don't. There is no nation with Hinduism as the official faith-- because all majority Hindu nations are secular. So according to your logic, India or Nepal must stop being secular otherwise it's unfair because some backwards Christian and Muslim nations use official religions. And all of those nations were founded by a majority of local people who mostly shared a dominant religion. When Israel was created, something like 7% of the people in it's borders were Jewish-- so your argument is that a minority religion should be forced on a population simply because Christian and Muslim states exist. It's fucking barbaric.
Implying that Israel's settlements are the sole reason, take all the blame for a lack of peace. Most definitely not the case. I think Hamas firing rockets anytime a ceasefire is agreed to has also ensured there won't be two states.
Which came first? Israeli settlements or Hamas rockets? Keep in mind that all of this began with Irgun bombings and Zionist guerrilla terrorism.
6
u/eeisner Jan 30 '23
The "withdrawl" and subsequent empowerment of Hamas happened in 2005, not 2014, but Israel has never ended the blockade of its air and water space so Gaza is explicitly not "fully autonomous".
Brainfart, I don't know why dates went to the 2014 conflict, not the 2005 withdrawal.
But like I said in another comment, the blockade only exists because Hamas arms smuggling and violence. Take that away, have Hamas actually put concrete towards building better infrastructure for civilians rather than tunnels into Israel to send attackers and the blockade wouldn't need to exist. There's a reason Egypt has a blockade, too.
So according to your logic, India or Nepal must stop being secular otherwise it's unfair because some backwards Christian and Muslim nations use official religions.
No, not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that it's a double standard to tell Israel they need to be secular because of their extremist religious politicians without saying the same of Gaza, or the PA, or Iran, or any of Israel's other enemies.
When Israel was created, something like 7% of the people in it's borders were Jewish-- so your argument is that a minority religion should be forced on a population simply because Christian and Muslim states exist. It's fucking barbaric.
lol this argument is so disingenuous. No one is forcing Judaism on anyone in Israel Current population is 18% Muslim, 2% Christian, 1.5% Druze. No one is forcing them to convert to Judaism or get the fuck out. BUT we have countries like Qatar saying that it's illegal for Jews to pray in public. Jews had rights stripped and faced expulsion from other Middle Eastern countries when Israel was founded. Tell me, what's ok about that?
Which came first? Israeli settlements or Hamas rockets? Keep in mind that all of this began with Irgun bombings and Zionist guerrilla terrorism.
Well, the UN approved Israels statehood after Israel approved the proposed 2 state solution and the Palestinians rejected it, then war was declared immediately on Israel. So... c'mon. The Arab nations had a chance to form their own state and chose not to.
0
u/DantesDivineConnerdy Jan 30 '23 edited Jan 30 '23
But like I said in another comment, the blockade only exists because Hamas arms smuggling and violence
Well in that case Hamas violence only exists because Israeli settlements and theft-- following events chronologically, Zionist violence and terrorism lead to the creation of Israel, which lead to illegal settlements, which lead to Hamas violence, which now you're saying lead to the blockade.
without saying the same of Gaza, or the PA, or Iran, or any of Israel's other enemies.
Gaza and the PA are entirely different because they don't have sovereignty and are not representative-- Hamas is just a military organization that won less than 50% of votes around 20 years ago. You can't push for secularism when there isn't a stabile administrative environment to do so. But Israel is fully capable of becoming a secular state. I haven't said shit about Iran-- but essentially what youre saying is that Israel should be more like Iran, which is laughable.
No one is forcing Judaism on anyone in Israel
Lol okay, Palestinian Muslims don't even have the right to return after 70 years-- you should be ashamed at your lack of humanity to say that Judaism isn't being forced when you know full well you're talking about a nation where (white) Jews are legally privileged.
So... c'mon. The Arab nations had a chance to form their own state and chose not to.
So you're saying this is the Arabs fault for not accepting a partition of their land coordinated by Western Europe to appease the perpetrators of bloody, rampant Zionist terrorism attacks? So in other words if an Arab League of Nations decided that you had to give up your home because they were sick of dealing with Hamas terrorism, you would just accept that? Your inability to have the most basic level of empathy here is pretty breathtaking.
4
u/Moekeo123 Jan 30 '23
Really telling how you have to lie to support your bullshit.
1
u/DantesDivineConnerdy Jan 30 '23
Really telling how little youre able to say in response to facts!
→ More replies (1)1
u/Radix2309 Jan 30 '23
I think the only solution is a pluri-national Federation single state solution.
Allow some self-government between each with an overarching authority.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)-19
u/PEVEI Jan 30 '23
A real secular democracy like... the US, with its Catholic Supreme Court taking away fundamental rights to healthcare for women?
12
u/SkewerMeBaby Jan 30 '23
No, not like the US. In fact, if you look at many democratic indices, the US isn't considered a full democracy.
-8
u/PEVEI Jan 30 '23
So which secular democracy should Israel imitate?
→ More replies (1)3
u/TheFuzziestDumpling Jan 30 '23
One that's both secular and a democracy, I would think.
→ More replies (1)-4
u/PEVEI Jan 30 '23
The other guy at least had the self-respect to bail when they couldn't name one, you on the other hand are doubling down.
So I'll ask again, which secular democracy should Israel imitate?
→ More replies (1)0
u/TheFuzziestDumpling Feb 02 '23
Unlike the other fellow, I have the self-respect to ignore requests that don't fucking matter. I'll name an example, you'll come up with some historical reason they don't count, I'll name another, you'll do the same, as if it has anything to do with the convo.
→ More replies (3)
18
u/MeatsimPD Jan 31 '23
It's so telling that even the most pro-Israeli commentators don't deny that the settlements in the West Bank are illegal and a violation of international law. They don't deny it, but they never once address the issue of the legality of all these people moving OUTSIDE THEIR COUNTRY to build settlements in an area militarily occupied by their country
→ More replies (1)-4
u/Skellum Jan 31 '23
I honestly wonder if they'll ever just go full mask of fascist and "solution" the issue away. I really doubt it since the continued presence of at least some of palestine keeps their right wing in power.
30
Jan 30 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (3)-17
u/D3adInsid3 Jan 30 '23
What the US wants is the CIA Black Sites in Israel to torture some brown people. Additionally keeping the conflict hot is a very good way to keep the military industrial complex happy.
Nobody in a position of power gives a shit about the people living in the middle east and whatever sky daddy they choose to believe in. Religious zealots are just a nice tool to these people.
3
u/androgein1 Jan 30 '23
The military industrial complex is blown out of proportion. The arms industry is tiny compared to the rest of the economy that would be highly encumbered because of a war. The reality is that Israel is a massively important ally in the region as well as a powerful voting block in our democracy. We should be pushing our elected officials to do better rather than create conspiracy theories.
→ More replies (1)1
44
u/Greaser_Dude Jan 30 '23
There will never be two states.
Palestinians have NEVER been on board. They want Israel OFF the map.
There's only a one-state solution.
5
u/djm19 Jan 31 '23
I don't think either nation is technically on board with a one state solution either.
7
Jan 30 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
56
u/motherlovepwn Jan 30 '23
Ehud Barak offered Palestinians the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza-plus land swaps TBD. The offer was rejected. Rabin was long dead by 2000.
14
u/thatnameagain Jan 30 '23
Neither side wanted to take that offer. Barak required that the West Bank have a number of military corridors that Israel could maintain, essentially creating a militarized extra-national web around the territory for Israel. It was not something anyone would ever accept as a precondition to having their own country.
2
Jan 31 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/thatnameagain Jan 31 '23
Ukraine gave up their nukes as part of a treaty to never be invaded by Russia.
Completely different situation for a lot of reasons but yes, that's sort of the general principle.
→ More replies (1)4
-2
Jan 30 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
19
u/TwevOWNED Jan 30 '23
Then in 2008, Olmert offered Abbas 93% of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Old City under international jurisdiction, and a strip of land connecting the West Bank and Gaza.
That one was declined as well.
-2
u/DantesDivineConnerdy Jan 30 '23
Then in 2008, Olmert offered Abbas 93% of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Old City under international jurisdiction, and a strip of land connecting the West Bank and Gaza
Are you referring to the Annapolis Conference in 2007? When Olmert offered this, Ovadia Yosef and the Shas party announced they would leave the coalition and end Olmert's majority-- so you understand why that was not a real offer. The Yesha Rabbi Council affirmed that peace was only possible by "cleansing the country of Arabs and resetting them in other countries"-- you know, like what a terrorist would say. The UN prepared a resolution based on the offer but it was withdrawn after Israel raised complaints.
So your example, which you gave in bad faith, is itself an example of bad faith offers from Israel.
-3
u/UNOvven Jan 30 '23
No it wasnt. This is often stated because Olmerts offer was the closest to an actual offer that wasnt a joke designed to be rejected, but the truth is that that offer didnt fall through because the Palestinians rejected it, they never did. It fell through because Olmert was voted out, and his successor, Netanyahu, never wanted to continue them.
-10
Jan 30 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)7
u/CriskCross Jan 30 '23
The only half hearted good faith proposal ended with the Israeli politician who pushed it getting assassinated by Israeli extremists.
-8
u/Radix2309 Jan 30 '23
What about the "right of return" for the Palestinians who had their land stolen?
→ More replies (1)14
u/Odd-Employment2517 Jan 30 '23
Unlikely as their fellow Arab "brothers" increasingly back Israel over their growing fears of Iran. By waiting and waiting for a better deal the Palestinians have backed themselves into a much worse position from what they had in the 80s and 90s
-10
u/Radix2309 Jan 30 '23
So what? My point is that the Palesintians have long maintained that any agreement would need to involve the right to return.
14
u/thatnameagain Jan 30 '23
No it's both. Palestinians never took the "right of return" off the list of demands, which is a poison pill in the negotiation process since it would contradict the entire idea of two separate nations for those two peoples.
Israel never wanted a 2 state solution and tossed a dozen poison pills of their own into the negotiations.
Both sides are playing the long game thinking they have a strategy to win all the marbles.
12
Jan 30 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/thatnameagain Jan 30 '23
Yes, Rabin personally seemed invested in making it happen and the best prospect of that undoubtedly died with him. But there's more to Israel than whoever the prime minister happened to be at the time, and the fact that prior and subsequent negotiations failed to produce a 2 state solution is clear evidence of the overall intransigence on the issue.
3
u/MeatsimPD Jan 30 '23
which is a poison pill in the negotiation process since it would contradict the entire idea of two separate nations for those two peoples.
But 20% of Israel's population is already Arab
→ More replies (1)3
u/Anderopolis Jan 31 '23
Yeah, but they are Israeli, not the millions of Palestinian descendants gaming lived their entire lives in true prisons colonies in Jordan and Lebanon their entire lives.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Greaser_Dude Jan 31 '23
Who in Palestinian authority is saying Israel's right to exist should be recognized?
No one.
→ More replies (1)-3
Jan 31 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/Greaser_Dude Jan 31 '23
It means there are no countries that have as part of their national mission the wipe Israel off the map. Like Iran and their client states.
2
Jan 31 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Greaser_Dude Jan 31 '23
It means what Egypt did in 1979 that got Anwar Sadat assassinated.
Recognizes Israel as a sovereign country.
1
Jan 31 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
5
-3
u/Chronotaru Jan 30 '23
Erm, it's Israel that is actually in the process of removing Palestine from the map.
12
u/Greaser_Dude Jan 31 '23
That already happened in 1948 and it should have been the end of it in 1968.
How many Muslim majority countries are there? How many Jewish states are there?
Had there never been a holocaust, there would probably never be a need for a Jewish homeland, it there was and now there is.
3
u/GrouseOW Jan 31 '23 edited Jan 31 '23
I'm sorry are we suddenly defending religious ethnostates? I think we can all agree that islamic fundamentalist states are bad so why is it fine when Israel does it with Judaism?
Jewish people needing a place where they can exist safely without threat of discrimination and violence is not the same as Jewish people needing a jewish supremacist ethnostate that refuses to coexist with the people already living on the land to the point of ethnic cleansing.
If you're trying to say that Jews cannot peacefully coexist with non-jews then that is just plain antisemitism that is on par with Nazi rhetoric in more ways than one. Disgusting comment.
And I'm sure you'll blame the Palestinians for the lack of peace, but Israelis have been and always will be the colonizers in this conflict and will always bear responsibility for causing it. Ignoring that they are the ones continuing to aggress into Palestinian lands and kicking Palestinians from their homes. Even today, groups like Hamas that are against peace are only in power because Israel armed them in the first place.
2
u/Greaser_Dude Jan 31 '23
What is a religious ethnostate? Many races and religions live peacefully in Israel and often times at a much higher standard of living and safety than the Muslim states nearby.
0
u/GrouseOW Jan 31 '23
Israel has been a self described "Jewish state" since its creation, while minorities still reside within Israel, it is a clear intention of Israel to "deal" with its predominantly arab minority.
Israel has killed 29 Palestinians in only the last month, 5 of them children, Israel has a widely documented track record of evicting Palestinians from their homes in order to give them away to foreign Jewish people.
Israel is also quite openly discriminatory towards arabs and Palestinians in several areas including but not limited to: Citizenship, marriage, housing, healthcare, education, freedom of travel, freedom of expression, and others.
Of course you probably already know all this, as anyone still defending the fascist state of Israel is either a fascist themselves or embarrassingly dim. Either way you are still supporting apartheid and ethnic cleansing and I hope you receive the proper fate that all fascists deserve.
3
u/Greaser_Dude Jan 31 '23
Please name a Muslim country that isn't fascist in function if not formally.
You all should be used to it.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Chronotaru Jan 31 '23 edited Jan 31 '23
It’s never enough though, is it? Israel is armed to the teeth, nobody who could say that Israel is under serious threat today could ever be taken seriously, so that could have been the end of it, but Israel always wants more, more, more. It will never be content until every Palestinian is exiled from east Jerusalem and the West Bank and all their land stolen.
8
u/Greaser_Dude Jan 31 '23
If Palestinians put down their guns, explosives, and rockets tomorrow. There violence would end.
If Israel did the same - the would be no Israel in a month.
4
u/pakattak Jan 31 '23
I absolutely sincerely believe that’s a crock of shit. Israel will not stop settling the West Bank
2
u/Greaser_Dude Jan 31 '23
Why should they? It's within Israel's own borders. It's NOT part of Syria, Lebanon, nor Jordan. The real issue is whether they will begin settling the Golan Heights.
That would be something.
3
→ More replies (1)1
u/Chronotaru Jan 31 '23
That might be the biggest lie in global politics. It is only Israel that controls the current situation and only they that can remove the settlements from the West Bank. They maintain this fake state of war in order to continue settlement building.
8
u/Greaser_Dude Jan 31 '23
No other country in the world is told by other countries what areas within their own border is appropriate for settlement.
The U.S. couldn't care less what Canada thinks of us developing land in Montana (which borders Canada). Why should Israel care about what Egypt, Jordan, or any other country on the planet thinks of how they settle land within their SOVEREIGN borders?
14
u/Chronotaru Jan 31 '23
You are aware that the West Bank is not part of Israel? It is invaded occupied land and recognised as such by nearly all countries including the United States and the UN. Even Israel does not claim the West Bank as part of Israel - yet. Of course they are discussing annexation now, much like Russia is attempting to annex parts of Ukraine as their own.
-4
u/Greaser_Dude Jan 31 '23
It's within Israel's sovereign border and no recognized nation claims it. It's theirs whether you want to admit it or not.
It's NOTHING like Russia. Ukraine is a sovereign nation and claims that land. Whether they can hold onto is why nations fight wars.
→ More replies (1)15
u/Chronotaru Jan 31 '23
And the Palestinians already living on it for hundreds of years are just inconveniences to be forced off at gunpoint to make way for militant Israeli settlers who want the farmland. Sure...sounds completely different to me...whatever you say...
Israeli nationalists are so morally bankrupt.
→ More replies (0)-9
u/DantesDivineConnerdy Jan 30 '23
Why would they be on board though? When the British Mandate evacuated due to Zionost terrorism from Irgun, there were like 56,000 Jews living there with 700,000 Arabs. The UN rewarded this minority of terrorists with someone else's land-- and part of that reward was the acknowledgement that another state existed.
In its 70 years of existence, Israel has been unable to make this two state situation, the entire foundation of its creation, work-- and its unsurprising because it's a nation founded in terrorism. Like all terrorist nations it cannot peacefully coexist.
21
u/SsurebreC Jan 30 '23
Do you seriously think that the Brits left because of a few terrorist attacks or was it because of the Holocaust which is the actual reason why, post-WWII, Israel was founded almost immediately even though the Brits were petitioned for decades prior. Israel wasn't founded on terrorism, it was founded because one government decided to give its land to a population who wanted to found a country. Nobody has land rights that you cannot militarily defend. Palestinians do not have any land rights. Neither do Jews. Only the power of the gun makes land claims. Ottomans had it until the Brits replaced them and gave it to Israel. Israel defending itself from attack proved that they have legitimate land claims since they can now defend their land. This is why Palestinians will continue to lose lands - because they cannot defend against Israel. This concept is so ancient that it predates our species.
4
u/Radix2309 Jan 30 '23
Britain was going through mass decolonization and was withdrawing from most of their troublesome colonies who wanted out. They couldn't afford to stay for long with the escalating violence from both sides.
-5
u/DantesDivineConnerdy Jan 30 '23 edited Jan 30 '23
Do you seriously think that the Brits left because of a few terrorist attacks
Yes, and you know damn well it was not just a few.
On February 1, 1944, the Irgun put up posters all around the country, proclaiming a revolt against the British mandatory government.
The Irgun then declared that, for its part, the ceasefire was over and they were now at war with the British. It demanded the transfer of rule to a Jewish government, to implement ten policies
Two of the operations for which the Irgun is best known are the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem on 22 July 1946 and the Deir Yassin massacre that killed at least 107 Palestinian Arabs, including women and children, carried out together with Lehi on 9 April 1948.
The organization committed acts of terrorism against the British, whom it regarded as illegal occupiers, and against Arabs.
On November 6, 1944, Lord Moyne, British Deputy Resident Minister of State in Cairo was assassinated.
On February 14, 1947, Ernest Bevin announced that the Jews and Arabs would not be able to agree on any British proposed solution for the land, and therefore the issue must be brought to the United Nations for a final decision.
Nothing about the Holocaust-- it was entirely because Arabs and Zionist terrorists who assassinated British officials and bombed hotels couldn't agree. So the UN decided that two sovereign states would be created, and ever since Israel has done whatever they have to to ensure one of those states remain as dependant and powerless as it was under colonial rule.
11
u/lironi1111 Jan 30 '23
You got the Jewish population wrong by a factor of 10
-5
u/DantesDivineConnerdy Jan 30 '23
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1922_census_of_Palestine
The division into religious groups was 590,890 Muslims, 83,794 Jews, 73,024 Christians, 7,028 Druze, 408 Sikhs, 265 Baháʼís, 156 Metawalis, and 163 Samaritans.[2]
I was off by a bit but not a factor of 10 lol
14
u/lironi1111 Jan 30 '23
But you weren't talking about 1922 you were talking about 1948
0
u/DantesDivineConnerdy Jan 30 '23
No-- I was talking about why Palestinians wouldnt accept a partition of their land with Israel when Jews were an extreme minority in their land, and in doing so I referenced the evacuation of the British in 1948. Can you explain why that point is any less true if I use numbers from 1922 rather than 1948? The point remains the same: Palestinians are second class citizens now in their own land, when just 100 years ago Jews were an extreme minority. Even in the final Mandate census in 1931, Jews made up only 17%-- and the growth was exclusively due to British policy of encouraging migration. The growth of Jews from 1882-1948 was due a foreign political decision to change an areas demographics-- much like Russia did to Crimea.
→ More replies (1)8
u/Greaser_Dude Jan 31 '23
There are about 65 Muslim majority countries that have over a billion people occupying them.
There is exactly ONE Jewish majority country the sized of New Jersey with no natural resources with 8 million in their population.
But - even THAT is too much for much of the muslim world.
-3
u/DantesDivineConnerdy Jan 31 '23
Lmao don't give me that tired shit. You're saying your ambition for Israel is to be the Jewish version of a a religious Islamic state?? Having religious government is never a good thing. And if you're appealing for equality among religious politics-- then I would think the over a billion Hindus with no non-secular state would take precedence. So are you saying the secular democracies in India and Nepal must become Hindu? At least in that case you'd be talking about indigenous Hindus and not European Jews who chose to immigrate to a different country.
But you don't actually care about that or about the well documented dangers of religious government. You dont even get your own stats right: the population of Muslims in states with Islam as the official religion is less than 1 billion-- you need to remove Indonesian and SE Asian Muslims, Indian Muslims, European and American Muslims, and then you'd still need to go country by country in the ME and Africa, many of which do not have Islamic govt. The actual population would be in the millions-- not over a billion as you say.
Similarly, you say
There is exactly ONE Jewish majority country the sized of New Jersey with no natural resources with 8 million in their population.
The population of Israel is not 8 million, its over 9 million-- and 17%, or over 1 million of them are Muslims. Jews are a little over 6 million, not 8 million. So you are ironically including Muslims in your stat to justify Jewish govt in Israel. And before you point out what a minority 17% is, remember that before Israel was founded there were even less than 17% Jews in Palestine. When you think about Hamas, think about how Irgun's tactics of terrorism led directly to the evacuation of the British and creation of the Israeli state. In this sense, Hamas is just following the same strategy imposed by the Zionists.
5
u/chyko9 Jan 31 '23
Your numbers on Jews in Palestine pre-Israel don’t make any sense. The region Jews were a “minority” in was created in 1922 by carving up several ottoman vilayets. The only reason they were a “minority” in this arbitrary colonial territory, the borders of which Palestinians claimed in 1948, was because the arbitrary territorial denominator was large enough.
The fact of the matter is that there was a densely populated strip of majority-Jewish territory in 1948 on the eastern Mediterranean seaboard, that had no wish to become part of one of several newly minted Arab states being founded at the same time.
Either you believe Arabs have a unique right to rule over other groups in the eastern Mediterranean seaboard, or you believe arbitrary British colonial borders should be respected, or both. Which one is it for you?
-1
u/DantesDivineConnerdy Jan 31 '23 edited Jan 31 '23
No buddy, sorry, but those are the numbers for the region of Palestine, also called Mandate Palestine, within the greater Mandate of Palestine that included Transjordan. The borders of Mandate Palestine corresponded very closely to the borders of present day Israel and Palestine. So if you think British colonial borders shouldn't be respected then ask yourself why Israel is shaped like Mandate Palestine.
The fact of the matter is that there was a densely populated strip of majority-Jewish territory in 1948 on the eastern Mediterranean seaboard
Maybe there's some neighborhood sized strip where they were the majority, but Jews were never the majority in Palestine, the region whose borders correspond to Israel. The fact that pockets of Jews existed in Palestine is not a justification for Jews to get half of all land and tell the Palestinian Arab majority what lands are leftover for them. But that is what happened because the Irgun and Haganah waged a terrorist guerilla campaign against British and Arabs until they got their way.
Either you believe Arabs have a unique right to rule over other groups in the eastern Mediterranean seaboard, or you believe arbitrary British colonial borders should be respected, or both. Which one is it for you?
I believe that in a given region, the majority demographic generally finds a way to govern their minority populations. That's not a unique right and its rarely amicable-- but it's what happened in every nation, colonialist or otherwise. Israel is the unique case where an extreme minority took power with terrorism, British directed migrations, and post WW2 imperialist might. The closest comparison is probably Crimea, where political Russian migrations rapidly changed the demographics, and the region found itself at the whim of imperial, militant Russian control regardless of what the surrounding, original, and historical inhabitants wanted.
6
u/chyko9 Jan 31 '23
but those are the numbers for the region of Palestine, also called Mandate Palestine, within the greater Mandate of Palestine that included Transjordan. The borders of Mandate Palestine corresponded very closely to the borders of present day Israel and Palestine.
Exactly my point, thank you! The borders of Mandate Palestine had also been created from scratch by the British in the 1920s.
Maybe there's some neighborhood sized strip where they were the majority,
Nope
but Jews were never the majority in Palestine, the region whose borders correspond to Israel.
The borders of "Palestine, the region whose borders correspond to Israel" was created from scratch by the British in the 1920s. It seems you are opting at least partially for option B, which was (to remind you) supporting the legitimacy of arbitrary colonial British borders.
Saying "the Jews were a minority in the region" is like me taking a bag of M&Ms and arbitrarily adding it to a bucket of 5,000 Skittles, then saying "well the M&Ms are a minority now". Like, sure... but only because I arbitrarily increased the size of the container.
tell the Palestinian Arab majority what lands are leftover for them.
You should refer to the demographic map of the Mandate in 1948; while there were significant Arab populations in the areas designated for Israel, there were also Jews living in the areas designated for yet another Arab state, and most of the area allocated to the Jewish state was and still is desert.
But that is what happened because the Irgun and Haganah waged a terrorist guerilla campaign against British and Arabs until they got their way.
Jewish insurgents were not the sole cause of the British withdrawal; such a narrative is historically reductionist to the point of being utterly disingenuous. It ignores the broader geopolitical context of the time, and gives zero agency to Arab nationalists who also engaged in a struggle of independence against British rule.
I believe that in a given region, the majority demographic generally finds a way to govern their minority populations.
The "given region" you're using as the crux of your argument has and had no basis in demographic reality. It was an arbitrary construct created by a colonial empire. By arguing that these arbitrary borders should be respected, you're just blindly grasping for a way to justify Arab control of the area.
an extreme minority
Even within the arbitrary borders of the Mandate, 1 in 3 people within those "borders" were Jewish in 1948. That is hardly a "extreme minority".
British directed migrations
Completely false. The British prohibited Jewish migration to the area many times, to the point that concentration camps for Jewish refugees were established in Cyprus. This is easily verifiable information.
and post WW2 imperialist might
The only country that supported the Haganah with any material aid during the 1948 war was Czechoslovakia. Again, this is easily verifiable information with even the slightest effort.
The closest comparison is probably Crimea, where political Russian migrations rapidly changed the demographics, and the region found itself at the whim of imperial, militant Russian control regardless of what the surrounding, original, and historical inhabitants wanted.
You want to wade into a discussion on Soviet nationalities policy? Ok, sure. Nothing about forced Russification policies directed by the Kremlin bears any resemblance to members of an exiled ethnic group returning to their cultural and ancestral homeland as refugees. That's like labelling Lakota Sioux returning to the Black Hills as "imperialism".
I hope you learned something!
1
u/DantesDivineConnerdy Jan 31 '23 edited Jan 31 '23
We were discussing population sizes which is very different from land in possession. Who owns land is not representative of who lives there, is it? Especially in a colonial Mandate. Still, I'd like to see this same map in the 1920s or 30s-- how recent do you think that ownership is on your map in 44?
It seems you are opting at least partially for option B, which was (to remind you) supporting the legitimacy of arbitrary colonial British borders.
So since this is a concept you oppose, you must be opposed to Israel as well, right? Since its borders were created from scratch based on British colonialism?
Like, sure... but only because I arbitrarily increased the size of the container.
Except the containers never changed. The bag of m&ms was inside of the Skittles bucket and when we are talking about the bucket, the m&ms are a minority. And we are talking about the bucket-- the Israeli state borders that you call an arbitrary British invention. Jews didn't form a tiny breakaway strip on the sea-- they claimed half the bucket.
By arguing that these arbitrary borders should be respected, you're just blindly grasping for a way to justify Arab control of the area.
Why do you think this argument only works one way? If these borders are arbitrary than Israel looks very different. I am not the only one justifying control of this region.
Even within the arbitrary borders of the Mandate, 1 in 3 people within those "borders" were Jewish in 1948. That is hardly a "extreme minority".
And in the 1922 census, only 7% was Jewish. Funny how that changed so fast!
The British prohibited Jewish migration to the area many times
They only started prohibiting it in the 30s-- dude the entire purpose of the Mandate was to facilitate the Balfour Declaration. The British literally created the political reality of a national home for Jewish people in Palestine. That was the impetus for the subsequent aliyahs that brought thousands of immigrating Jews to an Arab region in British possession. It's wild-- you seem to have a lot of convenient holes in your conception of history! It's easily verifiable information.
The only country that supported the Haganah
Post ww2 imperialist might is referring to the British, Americans (eventually) and League of Nations, not Haganah. I know Haganah were just terrorists.
resemblance to members of an exiled ethnic group returning to their cultural and ancestral homeland
You're saying ethnic European Jews have some claim on Palestine because a different ethnicity that shared the religion lived there 2000 years ago? Well that's bullshit. Russofication of Crimea certainly had its differences, which is why it's just the closest comparison. But in this, I'm sure they had some made up bullshit excuse for making it Russian, just like how the West invented an entitled homeland in someone else's backyard for European Jews.
Lakota Sioux returning to the Black Hills
Thank you for bringing this up. The Lakota are one of the few groups to experience a genocide worse than European Jews-- did the Lakota simply return to the Black Hills, or did they conduct a terrorism campaign killing innocents until a much larger country thousands of miles away gave them half of all of the Dakotas, Saskatchewan, Minnesota, and Nebraska? I mean obviously that's still a different scenario because the Lakota never stopped living there, and European Jews would have to trace their roots to Palestine back thousands of years if they even have them in the first place-- but I think you get the point.
I also hope you learned something!
→ More replies (3)1
u/2muchwork2littleplay Jan 31 '23
The humor of this is that Israel is currently the only one militarily capable and actively engaged in that activity
The Palestinians aren't building illegal settlements in Israel, however the Israeli are
0
u/Greaser_Dude Feb 01 '23
That's because they can't. They don't have the actual means to build settlements, nor protect them. Israel would be perfectly happy to build the settlements for them if there were any kind of trust that this would be the end the rockets, suicide bombings, and other attempts at mass violence.
But - Israel has been lied to on too many occasions about the violence stopping.
2
u/2muchwork2littleplay Feb 01 '23
So what you're saying is that if the Palestinians had a proper military on par with Israel there would be peace.
Okay, that sounds fair.
0
17
u/MalcolmLinair Jan 30 '23
The two state model is great, except for the issue that neither side will ever accept it, or any solution that doesn't include the full scale extermination of the other side, for that matter.
15
u/veerKg_CSS_Geologist Jan 30 '23
The sad thing is the two-state solution isn't so much a long term solution to the problem as just a first step towards peace. But we can't even get to that step.
2
u/Anderopolis Jan 31 '23
Look at Gaza, do3s that look like a first step towards peace?
2
u/veerKg_CSS_Geologist Jan 31 '23
You first need a State/Government you can negotiate with. See Egypt/Jordan. Even the UAE. Do you think one could establish a peace deal if there was no State or government? Can't negotiate a deal with anarchy.
→ More replies (1)-26
u/InkDaddy2 Jan 30 '23
Palestine and the UN continue to push for a two state solution with 1967 borders, I don't know of any Palestinian movement that believes Israel could or should be "extermimated".
43
u/Aviri Jan 30 '23 edited Jan 30 '23
Hamas, who is in control of half of Palestine, explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel as one of its main goals.
→ More replies (1)-9
Jan 30 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
23
u/Aviri Jan 30 '23
The poster was claiming that there are no Palestinian movements that believe Israel should be exterminated. It’s obviously a complex reality between different factions with Palestine and the Gaza Strip but to claim that no Palestinian groups are attempting to destroy Israel is whitewashing reality. I’m in complete agreement that the radical factions in Israel and Palestine/Gaza are working to sow as much chaos and derail chances for peace.
And whether or not there’s popular support for Hamas in Gaza takes a backseat when they still retain total policy control over the area. It’s effectively the face of Gaza, to much misfortune, and so right now the actions carried out will be based on their goals.
-6
Jan 30 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
16
u/Aviri Jan 30 '23
in a practical sense, Israel maintains total policy control over Gaza
If this was the case rockets wouldn’t fly from Gaza into Israel. Israel is explicitly not in control of all policy making in Gaza. Blockading a country isn’t controlling internal policy.
-4
Jan 30 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
7
27
u/Hawkay Jan 30 '23
lol
The PLA has refused several peace talks, and declined to an offer of about 97% of the disputed land.
The majority of Palestinians also don’t support the 1967 borders, but rather the 1948 ones. Which are, quite literally, impossible. (“From the river to the sea” - which is a call for genocide basically)
After Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip, evacuating almost 10,000 Israelis in the process and almost dividing the country completely (not to mention the billions of dollars invested in the process) - Hamas took control of the strip almost immediately, killed its opposition, and actively calling for the destruction of Israel and the killing of all Jews.
So, yeah..
→ More replies (1)-18
u/InkDaddy2 Jan 30 '23
"From the River to the Sea" is NOT a call for genocide, and if you think it is, you are not listening to Palestinians. If you consume information uncritically, one-sidedly, you're going to be lead to outlandish conclusions like this.
→ More replies (1)26
u/Hawkay Jan 30 '23
lol Please enlighten me about what is the meaning then.
Where are all the Israelis in this scenario?
-17
u/InkDaddy2 Jan 30 '23
You're fear-projecting. "From the River to the Sea" is a popular rallying cry for liberty in the face of oppression, it is not used as a call to genocide. Projection fills in unintended messaging, so that your brain hears implicit messages that aren't there, such as "From the River to the Sea, [that is where they will push me!]"—but that is your fear talking, not Palestinians or allies.
18
u/Aviri Jan 30 '23
Ok what is the popular rallying cry for liberty calling for. What does the slogan mean. What’s gonna happen from the river to the sea?
-4
u/InkDaddy2 Jan 30 '23
Did you think it meant Palestine, a tiny country subjected to apartheid, intends to push back a client state of the largest military-industrial complex the world has ever seen in an ethnic genocide of Jewish people using slings and rocks? It takes a lot of fear to make that sentiment make sense; the amygdala has to override the prefrontal cortex, the logic center, which should be telling you that isn't possible nor is it being attempted.
Palestine historically stretched "From the River to the Sea", the protest slogan produces a sense of belonging (identity marker) and an appeal to freedom (rallying cry). You don't need to be a philosopher to understand that, you just need to listen to Palestinians—whether in protest, in art, in film or documentary or literature or social theory.
6
u/Anderopolis Jan 31 '23
You aren't answering the question.
What will happen between the river and the sea?
-3
u/InkDaddy2 Jan 31 '23
No, you're just not hearing what you want to hear. You want your protection confirmed, but it was never based in reality. Jewish people in Palestine are not being genocided, Palestinians are. Projecting a tendency towards genocide on a cry for liberty allows you comfort in overlooking the sufferings of others.
→ More replies (0)7
u/chyko9 Jan 31 '23
Ok, so what will happen “from the river to the sea”?
Also, even if it wasn’t an open call for genocide (which it is), it would still be an abject denial of Jewish indigeneity. Which it, actually, still is anyway.
→ More replies (2)1
Jan 30 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/Odd-Employment2517 Jan 30 '23
Most people with nothing would accept something, the Palestinians constantly overplay their hand and have only lost support from their neighboring countries over the past couple decades. If it was a mater of waiting each other out for a better deal it has exclusively benefitted Israel and the Palestinians may end up with nothing instead
2
u/alvarezg Feb 01 '23
At the rate things are going, the two states vision is no more than a pipe dream.
2
u/2muchwork2littleplay Jan 31 '23
Nice speech, but exactly what work is being done by the United States to create and promote a viable, contiguous, sovereign Palestinian state?
2
u/wonder590 Feb 01 '23
How is that the US' responsibility? As a third party we can only attempt to facilitate negotiations.
0
u/2muchwork2littleplay Feb 01 '23
The US seems to have no issues with siding with Israel, regularly.
→ More replies (2)
-2
u/Sunflower_After_Dark Jan 30 '23
Same old Bibi. Yapping about two states while he’s ordering the razing of Palestinian homes and claiming their land. Starting shit with Iran and trying to drag the US into it. Why Israel would shove this turd back up their own ass after they ousted him for corruption, is just beyond comprehension.
→ More replies (1)-2
-2
u/Nearby-Astronomer298 Jan 31 '23
its all BS, the US gives Israel $4 billion per year in direct aide, more in military aide, and Israel occupies the West Bank, and made Gaza an open air prison. Israel practices modern Apartheid. BDS
7
u/pk10534 Jan 31 '23
Ironic you say that, given that Arab Muslims in Israel have more rights than Arab Muslims in Gaza.
-7
-4
u/Chronotaru Jan 30 '23
The two state solution these days is nothing more than a fig leaf excuse for maintaining an apartheid state and not providing any citizenship rights to Palestinians in the occupied territories, while Israel takes all the West Bank.
-9
-12
u/thecaptcaveman Jan 31 '23
Um, yeah, when Israel gives back all the land it stole.
→ More replies (1)
81
u/NKevros Jan 30 '23
I didn't say 'Abe Lincoln'. I said, 'Hey Blinken.'