Yes. Barak wanted a solution and understood better than Netanyahu that despite being stronger, it is not a great idea to have 5 million people who want to destroy you nearby.
I agree, just my wider point that just because your enemy says something, it doesn't mean it isn't true. Lying just breeds a post truth society when you're invariably proven to be a liar.
Thank you. A greenzone would be fairest but concessions would have to be made by both sides and balanced. How much better the world might be without religion though, as Lennon said.
True, but seeing as they both worship the same God at the same places, they might start with the "thou shalt not kill part" and see where that gets them.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Bit further both books have get out clauses for those commandments
Well, that is convenient. I wouldn't trust that update unless Israel are dropping 7.62mm rounds from the sky.
If you want to be a sophist, and thus religious, that is correct. And unforunately, that is the state of the world in such places.
So Jews should have pounded sand?
I agree, just a shame because it feels like an eternal conflict, rooted in millennia
They've thrown away so many chances for statehood because they wanted Israel destroyed. Even the maps posted above were a result of wars where Palestinians/Arabs attempted to destroy the enemy, and the enemy won and took land. It's disingenuous to paint them as any better than the Israelis. Todays populations are unfortunately dealing with the sad product of 100 years of this. Assigning fault is pointless for me.
Couldn't they have just kept the amount of land they had, rather than expanded?
It doesn't really help to go so far back, I only did it to add context whenever an extremist quip is brought up, but what do you call Columbus in America today? Settler-genocide of an indigenous population. There's precisely no difference in terms of the settler-led conflict after a certain date in history, 1947 ish (certainly 1967-), with respect to the situation in Israel today. If the world lives long enough, it will be viewed, historically, in the same way (it already can be). Only a peacedeal, two states, prevents that inevitability (at scale).
Why should Palestinians have to pay for European guilt of the treatment of Jews?
While I agree that wars have territorial consequences, I do not think that justify destroying people's houses, asking them to move away and deal with it, and then in 5 years going and destroying their houses again, and asking them to move away and 'die in peace'. In meanwhile, building nice villas for the settlers in the land of other people, and then pretending that all they want is to live in peace.
It's not just about guilt, is it?
Not sure Owlo can justify the West Bank housing stuff with "conflict and war territory gain"
Not sure that's entirely what's going on here chap.
As an observer on this thread, a small thanks to you for sharing your view and your life - this is a broad, international community and such things are what make it worthwhile. Stay safe!
It's too simplistic. Name one conflict, of similar influx, where this has not been the result? Native tribal consolidation around a few key areas against the general settler-invasion. You can go throughout history as long as you want and it reads precisely the same in terms of armed revolt. Blaming Palestinians/Arab tribes for resisting what is literally an occupation of their land (over a century). More egregious after certain international treaties were signed and entirely ignored. There is barely a Palestine left from which to make a two-state solution and that was the case in 2000 when it was only the Mosque, or chiefly the Mosque, which prevented a peace-deal.
There's no moral justification for the situation as it is now. They are morally in the wrong and Palestine should have a state. Unfortunately my view is that it's simply how a major power acts to dominate and ethnically cleanse native populations. It's how it's always been done for the last few hundred years. It's not right in any sense, but no land began without natives. Israels behaviour is perfectly rational in this sense.
Palestinians were complicit. Not all of them of course, but the leadership contributed men to SS units, Al Husseini effectively led them and rejected mediation attempts for a Jewish state on Palestinian terms, and despite knowing about death camps, fully supported the regime and were part of the Axis.
Difference is Ukraine demographic is white. A lot more sympathy from the west!
So, by that rationale, if all the Arab states around Israel unite, and a new war breaks out that defeats the Israelis, it would be right they are exterminated?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
But the fact remains that Israel occupied Palestine, and therefore they have the right to fight.
It’s why the mourning of Israelis is 100X that for each Palestinian killed.
That's honestly ridiculous. They were under the Ottoman and then the British Empire for centuries. How were they complicit in the rise of Nazi Germany? Insofar as they went for the Germans, over the British, I'd imagine it was the Balfour Declaration, in the previous war when Palestine changed hands (into British control) which led to that response. A people without any real power for a long time. It's like saying Ethiopia deserved to pay a price because it had a puppet under the WW2 regime which was ousted post-war. These, then-called, third world nations, had no real say in what happened during those periods and sided with whomever was against the colonial oppressor they were most used to (Gandhi in India might be the exception if only because Indian statehood was guaranteed in the aftermath and merely agreed to be postponed during the war). Many welcomed Japan for a time, in occupied British lands (not until the British were out nor because they liked the Japanese).
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
You're right, they had every right to revolt. It was a logical and rational response to do so. But they and their allies knew the price of defeat. Just as the Native Americans knew the price of defeat in revolt. (and every native power before that, including jews under bar kokhba against the romans or as you say countless others) - The victors aren't 'right' or 'just' - They even (in my opinion) had a right to revolt this time. It was rational considering their situation. But they must know the cost if they fail.
I sympathize with the argument and I've seen blatant examples of that line of thinking. But it's hardly a Western thing to care more about people who seem similar to you.
Fair enough. I didn't understand your point entirely.
Wait, so instead of the actual perpetrator (Germany) to actually paid for their mistakes, you think punishing the Palestinian instead was fair deal?
I suppose he can answer for himself, but if that did happen there wouldn't be much anyone could do about it. It wouldn't 'be right', it would just be.
They weren't complicit in the rise of Nazi Germany, and during the rise many of their scholars were against it. Would you agree that Amin Al-Husseini was both a palestinian leader, and a nazi who called for the genocide and mass murder of jews. Palestinian leaders also wrote to Nazi leaders, telling them it was better to send Jews to extermination camps than to let them emigrate to Israel. There are photos of Palestinian leaders in Nazi Germany, visiting sites of concentration camps, and chatting to Hitler.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
