Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less

Wasn't a two state solution on the table in 2000 and Arafat rejected it?
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.

Arafat didn’t negotiate and just said No. The plan while not as good as the one negotiated with Rabin, was far better than Palestinians can dream to get now.
 
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
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
 
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.

Arafat didn’t negotiate and just said No. The plan while not as good as the one negotiated with Rabin, was far better than Palestinians can dream to get now.

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.
 
So Jews should have pounded sand?
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).
 
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.
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.

I mean, it just doesn't work that way. If you want a normal life (like in the West), you are supposed to have a normal behavior. What Israel has been doing with their settler policy is far from civilized, so of course, there is occasional payback they get.

Don't get me wrong, I think Hamas are far worse. If they could, they would kill every Jew. However, Israel's behavior has been feeding their hatred (and vice versa). So in the end, Israel cannot get both all the land and the peace, unless they do a similar genocide that the Nazis did on them, which understandably they are reluctant to do. And unfortunately, they chose land over peace, a lot helped by Palestinians non realistic demands (who also are not interested in peace at all).
 
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.

I mean, it just doesn't work that way. If you want a normal life (like in the West), you are supposed to have a normal behavior. What Israel has been doing with their settler policy is far from civilized, so of course, there is occasional payback they get.

Don't get me wrong, I think Hamas are far worse. If they could, they would kill every Jew. However, Israel's behavior has been feeding their hatred (and vice versa). So in the end, Israel cannot get both all the land and the peace, unless they do a similar genocide that the Nazis did on them, which understandably they are reluctant to do. And unfortunately, they chose land over peace, a lot helped by Palestinians non realistic demands (who also are not interested in peace at all).
Not sure Owlo can justify the West Bank housing stuff with "conflict and war territory gain"
 
cheers mate, and also @Superden and @SilentWitness for replying earlier.

I'm having panic attacks and have been contemplating suicide if I'm honest,
but I know this side of me from way before the last two days and I'll overcome it.

I shall mention that I have friends and family members with whom I keep in close contact, no need to worry.

Feels nice to be able to write it here.

Caf community really is special.
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!
 
  • Like
Reactions: langster
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 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.

You say, the Arabs invaded (and they did) but these are invasions in response to a settler-colonial invasion. It's been this way, tit-for-tat, for 80 years. You don't blame the Ukrainians for wanting Russia free of their territory. What, precisely, is the difference, in the long-run? Each, both Ukraine and Palestine, will have to make concessions (territorial) with respect to a situation where a larger, more powerful state, holds land (and various supports).
 
It is a little shocking to see events and rallies in major cities in the UK and US using flowery language and celebrating as if Hamas is leading a people's revolution when all they have done is give the Israeli military the greenlight to flatten Gaza. There's one video doing the rounds where the speaker refers to the victims at the music festival as "hipsters" being captured adding "i'm sure they're being treated well"
 
If you stand with the Ukranians, you have to stand with the Palestinians, no?

It's basically the same thing.
Russia violently occupied parts of Ukraine. They fight to retrieve that land.
Israel violently occupied parts of Palestine. Do they not fight?

Do we not stand with them?
 
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.

I mean, it just doesn't work that way. If you want a normal life (like in the West), you are supposed to have a normal behavior. What Israel has been doing with their settler policy is far from civilized, so of course, there is occasional payback they get.

Don't get me wrong, I think Hamas are far worse. If they could, they would kill every Jew. However, Israel's behavior has been feeding their hatred (and vice versa). So in the end, Israel cannot get both all the land and the peace, unless they do a similar genocide that the Nazis did on them. And unfortunately, they chose land over peace, a lot helped by Palestinians non realistic demands (who also are not interested in peace at all).

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.

Why should Palestinians have to pay for European guilt of the treatment of Jews?

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.

It's absolutely right they paid a price for defeat.
 
If you stand with the Ukranians, you have to stand with the Palestinians, no?

It's basically the same thing.
Russia violently occupied parts of Ukraine. They fight to retrieve that land.
Israel violently occupied parts of Palestine. Do they not fight?

Do we not stand with them?
Difference is Ukraine demographic is white. A lot more sympathy from the west!
 
If you stand with the Ukranians, you have to stand with the Palestinians, no?

It's basically the same thing.
Russia violently occupied parts of Ukraine. They fight to retrieve that land.
Israel violently occupied parts of Palestine. Do they not fight?

Do we not stand with them?


Yes and no. The two conflicts/wars are not synonymous. One marked difference is that Ukraine does not have as its end goal the total annihilation of Russia as a physical entity. On the contrary it is rather Russia that implies that Ukraine has no right to exist.
 
Yes and no. The two conflicts/wars are not synonymous. One marked difference is that Ukraine does not have as its end goal the total annihilation of Russia as a physical entity. On the contrary it is rather Russia that implies that Ukraine has no right to exist.

But the fact remains that Israel occupied Palestine, and therefore they have the right to fight.

And you are just implying that the end goal of the Palestines is for Israel to stop existing? Or am i missing something?
 
Difference is Ukraine demographic is white. A lot more sympathy from the west!

It’s why the mourning of Israelis is 100X that for each Palestinian killed.

One set look like us, the other don’t and have been getting dehumanised for the past 20 years
 
Palestinians were complicit.
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).

Bear in mind, it was the Czarist Russian anti-semitic regime which first began the major export of Jewish settlers to Palestine. These places have been used as dumping grounds in colonial squabbles for centuries.
 
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.

You say, the Arabs invaded (and they did) but these are invasions in response to a settler-colonial invasion. It's been this way, tit-for-tat, for 80 years. You don't blame the Ukrainians for wanting Russia free of their territory. What, precisely, is the difference, in the long-run? Each, both Ukraine and Palestine, will have to make concessions (territorial) with respect to a situation where a larger, more powerful state, holds land (and various supports).

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.

Revolt has those inherent risks. You judge the risks and chance of success when doing so. The oppressors will always exact revenge in a brutal fashion if victorious.

[Bear in mind I'm not making a judgment on whether Israel is 'right' or 'just' in any way, and I'm not saying that the palestinians don't deserve more and aren't in a shitty position. I'm simply saying that everything happening is completely rational. Some good posts from you by the way, even if our perspectives are complete opposites.

You're right about Ukraine too. Russia is a superior power, and eventually Ukraine have to make concessions if they want to sue for peace. Whether the west is ready to accept that or not.
 
It’s why the mourning of Israelis is 100X that for each Palestinian killed.

One set look like us, the other don’t and have been getting dehumanised for the past 20 years
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.

That being said, the West also at the same time seems the most outspoken on issues concerning non-white people. For example, the Uyghurs, migrant workers in Qatar, women in Afghanistan, the Iranian anti-government protestors and so forth.
 
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.

Revolt has those inherent risks. You judge the risks and chance of success when doing so. The oppressors will always exact revenge in a brutal fashion if victorious.

[Bear in mind I'm not making a judgment on whether Israel is 'right' or 'just' in any way, and I'm not saying that the palestinians don't deserve more and aren't in a shitty position. I'm simply saying that everything happening is completely rational. Some good posts from you by the way, even if our perspectives are complete opposites.

You're right about Ukraine too. Russia is a superior power, and eventually Ukraine have to make concessions if they want to sue for peace. Whether the west is ready to accept that or not.
Fair enough. I didn't understand your point entirely.
 
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.

It's absolutely right they paid a price for defeat.
Wait, so instead of the actual perpetrator (Germany) to actually paid for their mistakes, you think punishing the Palestinian instead was fair deal?
 
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?

The old, "might is right"?
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.

Might is right is usually the case, as I imagine both Israelis and Palestinians know far too well.
 
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).

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.