There needs to be a truth and reconciliation process like post-apartheid SA.
In reality, nothing will change until one group no longer exists in the region/is displaced somewhere else.
Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) look forward to a new life under Ruben Amorim. What system will we be playing? What players will impress? and how will it all go? We also say goodbye to Ruud Van Nistelrooy and review United's 3-0 win at home against Leicester City.
In reality, nothing will change until one group no longer exists in the region/is displaced somewhere else.
But it's the truth. There's only two viable options, either a single state with all people having a franchise in its democratic process or Israel completely wipes out every single Palestinian and for full safety they kill every overseas descendant so the pallys don't make their own aliyah in a 1000 years time.
Aren't the west turning a blind eye to literal nazi infested battalions in Ukraine?
Curiously it's a tradition to spit on certain religious groups in Israel according to a recently released viral video.
Alas, every thing in your post can actually be charged at Israel, the IDF, and the supporters of them. Unfortunately, the self-awareness to realise this seems lost.
That would be the best thing, but as I said before, I think that died with Rabin. Since then, Israel has elected right and more right politicians, while Palestinians have been radicalized more and show less constrains to do terror.
The only way they can make any progress is if the Western powers boycott and sanction Israel until they acquiesce. There's more chance of pigs flying than that happening however. Part of the reason why Israel behave the way they behave is because of the Western (re: US) backing.
They will likely annex all of Palestine and demote Arabs to second class citizens until such a time when Jews outnumber Arabs - or just flat out make being Jewish a prerequisite for full rights as a citizen.
Or when they finally do have complete territorial control they might be under considerably more international pressure to treat Arab citizens as equals than they are now. As of now they can hide behind the need to protect the country from terrorists, and that they technically aren't responsible for Gaza, they can't do that if they have full territorial control.
This is so depressing. Seems utterly hopeless.
Do you think Hamas would commit such acts of barbarism if the west were giving them tanks and jets so they could actually attempt to fight Israel as equals?
They cannot unless most Arabs leave the country. Even a 70-30% population in favor of Israelis is dangerous for Israel, cause in two generations the demographics might change and if they get outnumbered, well, how to say it nicely, there won't then be Israelis left there.
If you read Friedman's opinion on the NYT, long-standing, in the past, very hawkish pro-Israeli commentator, but less so of late, it is the second paragraph that is worth reading.
If Israel goes into Gaza very hard, then the liklihood of Hezbollah joining from the north rises exponentially. The point is that the situation doesn't change regardless. Israel cannot hold Gaza nor push Hezbollah out of the northern territories and Hamas/etc cannot defeat Israel. Cooler heads would see it as an opportunity to strike a some form of peace deal in the aftermath. Without two-state solution, we're back here again in a year's time. And then again.
I thought that was the contention or critique of Ukraine? Have I misunderstood it? Or is all of that Russian propaganda?
Edit; https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cohen-ukraine-commentary-idUSKBN1GV2TY - from 2018
I agree, you have to just make a decision to let the past die. No more score settling. Just move on.
Can't work. It, Israel, was founded as the Jewish state. Demographics mean one-state, with equality, means Jewish minority and thus not a Jewish state. That's a much harder sell than winding back settlements (as hard as that is, it's at least clear where international law stands) in the WB and creating a contiguous Palestinian state via high-speed rail/road networks. It is two-state solution or varying degrees of warfare on a perpetual basis (bearing in mind the number of Palestinians who live within Israel proper).
Ahh the dehumanising, such a well worn path.
Which is why the two state solution has been dominant for so long, despite everyone involved being fully aware of its challenges that basically makes it impossible.
I'm a bit reluctant to jump in on this because I am aware of how little I really know, but surely intentions matter here also, it's not just about treatment but goals. Hamas want to wipe jews out and would if they could, and they ally with states who want the same. Israel doesn't want to wipe out Palestinians and you could interpret Israeli actions as containment. (I am not excusing the often brutal and stupidly self defeating nature of that containment at all, by the way). But it seems that even if Israel stopped tomorrow, and somehow everything got better for the Palestinians, there would still be people, organisations and states who wanted to wipe Jews out and would do their best to make that happen.
It's also why this was sadly predicted. The general cutting away at the WB over the past two decades, undermining the two state solution, purposefully, with complete Western ignorance/support/toothlessness, is the background against which the Palestinians calculate their future. Supporting "Israel's right to defend itself" and never doing anything of substance about the illegal settlement campaigns into the WB, for such a long time, even supporting them in some cases, leads us here. It is anti-Israeli security (especially over the past five years or so) and obviously anti-Palestinian security, too.
There is a single battalion (Azov) that is supposedly fascistic, but it's an excuse that Russia made to justify its actions.
I mean, that's just nonsense. If you said that in the Arab world, or beyond Western prisms, you'd be laughed at. Hamas, whatever grain of terrorist/freedom fighter you want to call them, gains its support because of this and Fatah's inability to govern in the WB or Gaza which has been a purposed Israeli campaign to cut into areas entirely settled (boundaries) under international law:
That's a rough approximation, and no one wants to go through the history, but the Palestinians are acutely conscious of it (as are the Arabs) and it only runs to 2005 (it is worse now in terms of settlements in the WB). Only one "state" (post-47, despite tribal claims or whatever) has been wiped off the map or come close to being so and it isn't Israel. So a one-state solution is impossible, because Israel self-defines as a Jewish state, and demographics don't allow for it, meaning the only alternative is that which the Palestinians are being entirely denied for 20+ years straight (may as well limit it to 2000 onward) with us only ever hearing about "Israel's right to defend itself". In the broader context, of constant settlement, entirely illegal, what does "defend itself" mean? Take all available land? Without actual sanctions, when Israel is breaking law continuously, it is basically a Western justification, tacit, of Israeli colonialism.
Think I posted here somewhere.
Oh right, well Russia used a lot of excuses, Ethnic Russians being killed, the land was there's due to some deal many years ago, Nazi's etc.
Just because they make an excuse doesn't mean that you can ignore if some of the situation is true I suppose.
Edit;
This passage from the Reuters article in 2018:
According to Freedom House’s Ukraine project director Matthew Schaaf, “numerous organized radical right-wing groups exist in Ukraine, and while the volunteer battalions may have been officially integrated into state structures, some of them have since spun off political and non-profit structures to implement their vision.” Schaaf noted that “an increase in patriotic discourse supporting Ukraine in its conflict with Russia has coincided with an apparent increase in both public hate speech, sometimes by public officials and magnified by the media, as well as violence towards vulnerable groups such as the LGBT community,” an observation that is supported by a recent Council of Europe study.
In recent months, Ukraine has experienced a wave of unchecked vigilantism. Institute Respublica, a local pro-democracy NGO, reported that activists are frequently harassed by vigilantes when holding legal meetings or rallies related to politically-controversial positions, such as the promotion of LGBT rights or opposition to the war. Azov and other militias have attacked anti-fascist demonstrations, city council meetings, media outlets, art exhibitions, foreign students and Roma. Progressive activists describe a new climate of fear that they say has been intensifying ever since last year's near-fatal stabbing of anti-war activist Stas Serhiyenko, which is believed to have been perpetrated by an extremist group named C14 (the name refers to a 14-word slogan popular among white supremacists). Brutal attacks this month on International Women’s Day marches in several Ukrainian cities prompted an unusually forceful statement from Amnesty International, which warned that "the Ukrainian state is rapidly losing its monopoly on violence.”
Last edited:
If the life of Palestinians improve, they will do less acts of terror. It is why the West Bank Palestinians are nowhere as radicalized as Gaza Palestinians. They have slightly better lives. And it is why Israeli Arabs are essentially not radicalized at all, cause they have decent lives.
To go to most brutal forms of humanity, where essentially you can kill kids and women (not via drones or air strikes where you do not see them), you behead people, to not care about your life or your children’s life (which is what Hamas did two days ago), you need to pass a very high threshold. And you do that, only where everything was taken away from you, where there is not a single drop of hope left.
At the contrary, I think if they got better lives they would have become less terrorists. Israel decided that the way forward is to stripe humanity from Palestinians and to treat them somewhere from third-class citizens (West Bank) to animals (Gaza). Because the Israel became so strong military (especially after the Iron Dome), that kinda worked for them. Until, it did not work anymore.
And now they need to make another hard decision: do a Holocaust in Gaza, continue the status quo of continuing the cycle of violence (that in the future might bring similar attacks), or rethink their policy of the last 20 years. My bet is that it will be the second, and they will give a massive punishment to Gaza, but short of genocide, while increasing their security for this to not happen again.
And it will work for a while. Until it won’t.
Decent post.I mean, that's just nonsense. If you said that in the Arab world, or beyond Western prisms, you'd be laughed at. Hamas, whatever grain of terrorist/freedom fighter you want to call them, gains its support because of this and Fatah's inability to govern in the WB or Gaza which has been a purposed Israeli campaign to cut into areas entirely settled (boundaries) under international law:
That's a rough approximation, and no one wants to go through the history, but the Palestinians are acutely conscious of it (as are the Arabs) and it only runs to 2005 (it is worse now in terms of settlements in the WB). Only one "state" (post-47, despite tribal claims or whatever) has been wiped off the map or come close to being so and it isn't Israel. So a one-state solution is impossible, because Israel self-defines as a Jewish state, and demographics don't allow for it, meaning the only alternative is that which the Palestinians are being entirely denied for 20+ years straight (may as well limit it to 2000 onward) with us only ever hearing about "Israel's right to defend itself". In the broader context, of constant settlement, entirely illegal, what does "defend itself" mean? Take all available land? Without actual sanctions, when Israel is breaking law continuously, it is basically a Western justification, tacit, of Israeli colonialism.
Netanyahu himself prefers Hamas to Fatah. Fatah has been relatively peaceful, recognizes Israel, wants a two state solution. Hamas are terrorist jihadists, want every Jew dead (or out of Israel).
Netanyahu’s policy was strengthening Hamas because everyone hates terrorists. Stronger Hamas means less sympathy for Palestinians, in turn, more land to steal for Israeli settlers and no two-state solution.
Exactly, and Fatah is losing ground rapidly because it is seen as "peacefully" allowing all Palestinian land to disappear (which then gives you extremist elements in response which Israel, the regime, much prefers because you just say "terrorist" and no one bats an eyelid). Israel ensures Fatah cannot govern/consolidate in the WB whilst only ever airing grievances against Hamas/IJ/Hezbollah/Iranian proxies/etc., which is the direct corollary of that tactic (support from Fatah to Hamas/IJ primarily).
I can't help but think that historically the problem has been unconditional support from the US. If the US had threatened to withdraw support unless Israel ceased expansion and negotiated a viable two-state solution then Israel might have had little choice but to comply, in order to retain US protection. Could still be done, but requires a change in US opinion.
He almost makes too much sense.
They've vetoed, entirely solo, as you say, every potential resolution at the UN security council for decades. So it is a huge problem. The change in US opinion is only going to come from increased Arab League strenght: the Saudi retreat, immediately, post-Hamas attack. The Arabic world, broadly, is more geopolitically important these days to the US than Israel by itself and it sets resolution of this conflict as minimal in terms of complete normalization of ties with Israel. So something has to give.
Wasn't a two state solution on the table in 2000 and Arafat rejected it?
I don't know the details of that one. Why did Arafat reject it?
Every country that goes to war or goes anything immoral has their 'reasons' ready.
Russian aggression against Ukraine is a land grab, as you can see by Crimea before etc.
With Israel there is a legitimate history of aggression against them prior to the imposition of the restrictions on the Palestinian people, they have however used that to their advantage over decades, it's a mess and peace is a million miles away
Yep - he's great.
That's nonsense. They were given land that's not theirs, and it was given by a country with no authority to give it. Stop making shitty excuses. Even the UN vote in 1947 was a sham - full of brown envelopes and US bullying.
The Mosque. Couldn't accept Israeli ownership of Al Aqsa. Needed some kind of independent greenzone. Wouldn't have led to a peace if he signed it, just a document which said so.
If you read back on that period the Clinton negotiation team laments the fact that they had an overflow of American Jewish negotiators and very few, if zero, Arabic viewpoints (it is these negotiators who are making that point).