Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
This probably requires at least correction or 2, so someone please make any they have:.
Basically Israeli policy towards Gaza since Sharon disengaged has been to occupy the air and sea and blockade it and bomb it whenever rockets are fired or anything violent happens from Gaza to Israel.
Israeli policy towards the West Bank is to build settlements there and take over the land piece by piece, perhaps stopping at some point, leaving a bunch of West Bank towns/cities under the control of Fatah, with no voting rights in Israeli elections. The closest comparison I've seen is the Bantustans of South Africa, because in indigenous reserves in say Canada the residents can vote in Canadian federal elections.
The settlers in the West Bank have a pretty green light to launch attacks without Israeli state organs (police, IDF) stopping them, because the attacks and land grabs are consistent with Israeli state policy. The major political opposition to these attacks and land grabs is the Israeli center, illustrated by the figure of Gantz (in the coalition now, fairly good odds to be next PM), who has supported stopping the attacks and land grabs by settlers, though he is against giving back any of the settlements created so far.
So basically, the settlers on the ground and the right in Israel and some of the center want to keep creating new settlements/land grabs. The center mostly wants settlement creation/land grabs to be decided by the state, not the settlers on the ground, or not done anymore, but also no settlements made before today to be razed or have the Jewish population evicted from those places.
The West Bank is being taken piece by piece by settlers who are generally expansionist and believe Israel should control all lands they can make a biblical claim to, but don't want a one state solution where the Palestinians get to vote in Israeli elections and can travel the country freely. They want the West Bank to be a mix of Israel, and Apartheid style Bantustans. The Netanyahu governments back them when they can get 61/120 seats without center votes and form a government, which they had before the War, but then they added in the center because Israeli convention is to be unified during a war, and likely also because the massive protests in Israel (Bibi and the right moved to reduce the power of the Supreme Court and Constitution) which meant the government was worried people wouldn't support the war effort unless someone like Gantz was in the war cabinet as well.
The center, like the center in many countries, doesn't love the right wing solution but doesn't oppose it, and effectively has no position on a long-term peace process, since that would mean either a one state solution (which they don't support) or a 2 state solution (which they sort of support in theory, but if they won't get rid of settlements, that would either be a state of patches of unconnected land (which I don't think has ever existed?) it would have to be only the Eastern half of the West Bank).
And in this specific case:
"Everything to the right" = more settlements in the West Bank, some of which are created via private settler attacks and some of which are state created.
"Block movement back to the left" = The state getting rid of those settlements.
Not excusing anything the Israelis are doing in the West Bank, but I assume you guys simply mean that Hamas and/or PIJ are not in charge there? Because it’s not accurate to say they have no presence in the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority have been struggling to contain them lately, especially in the north around Nablus and Jenin (PIJ are particularly well-rooted in the Jenin refugee camp).
That’s a very good summary @NoPace , I’d just expand on this bit -
- to say that a significant proportion of these settlers, and their supporters in the current government, are in favor of mass expulsion rather than “Apartheid style Bantustans” as you put it. And are likely to view moments of mass crisis as an opportunity to attempt to conduct such a policy.
- to say that a significant proportion of these settlers, and their supporters in the current government, are in favor of mass expulsion rather than “Apartheid style Bantustans” as you put it. And are likely to view moments of mass crisis as an opportunity to attempt to conduct such a policy.
What is Isreal expecting with a land invasion, especially with tanks. I think Hamas was just waiting for this opportunity. Urban guerrila warfare among rubble.
Bingo. Basically Israel has its boot over Palestine's throat, and if Palestine resists in any way(be it violent or non violent), Israel will retaliate 5x more and justify it as self defense.
The issue will never be solved because people are not addressing the disease(Israeli occupation/apartheid), but rather the symptom(Hamas's attacks).
If you conveniently ignore all the context of the oppression, and start looking it just from Oct 7th onwards, its the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "lalala I dont hear you". Israel is choosing to do that because it just needs a justification to flatten Gaza.
No government is perfect but not all are as bad as all others. I'm not that nihilistic. If the US dod tells me one thing and, say, Russia says another then I do think there's a difference.
There is a difference.
But I would put it this way: "does X government lie", "does X government lie more than Y government", are objective issues. "should you trust government X if they are shown to lie" is a subjective issue. There isn't one right answer. Not trusting them on this matter is perfectly acceptable given the track record (IMO).
Last edited:
This probably requires at least correction or 2, so someone please make any they have:.
Basically Israeli policy towards Gaza since Sharon disengaged has been to occupy the air and sea and blockade it and bomb it whenever rockets are fired or anything violent happens from Gaza to Israel.
Israeli policy towards the West Bank is to build settlements there and take over the land piece by piece, perhaps stopping at some point, leaving a bunch of West Bank towns/cities under the control of Fatah, with no voting rights in Israeli elections. The closest comparison I've seen is the Bantustans of South Africa, because in indigenous reserves in say Canada the residents can vote in Canadian federal elections.
The settlers in the West Bank have a pretty green light to launch attacks without Israeli state organs (police, IDF) stopping them, because the attacks and land grabs are consistent with Israeli state policy. The major political opposition to these attacks and land grabs is the Israeli center, illustrated by the figure of Gantz (in the coalition now, fairly good odds to be next PM), who has supported stopping the attacks and land grabs by settlers, though he is against giving back any of the settlements created so far.
So basically, the settlers on the ground and the right in Israel and some of the center want to keep creating new settlements/land grabs. The center mostly wants settlement creation/land grabs to be decided by the state, not the settlers on the ground, or not done anymore, but also no settlements made before today to be razed or have the Jewish population evicted from those places.
The West Bank is being taken piece by piece by settlers who are generally expansionist and believe Israel should control all lands they can make a biblical claim to, but don't want a one state solution where the Palestinians get to vote in Israeli elections and can travel the country freely. They want the West Bank to be a mix of Israel, and Apartheid style Bantustans. The Netanyahu governments back them when they can get 61/120 seats without center votes and form a government, which they had before the War, but then they added in the center because Israeli convention is to be unified during a war, and likely also because the massive protests in Israel (Bibi and the right moved to reduce the power of the Supreme Court and Constitution) which meant the government was worried people wouldn't support the war effort unless someone like Gantz was in the war cabinet as well.
The center, like the center in many countries, doesn't love the right wing solution but doesn't oppose it, and effectively has no position on a long-term peace process, since that would mean either a one state solution (which they don't support) or a 2 state solution (which they sort of support in theory, but if they won't get rid of settlements, that would either be a state of patches of unconnected land (which I don't think has ever existed?) it would have to be only the Eastern half of the West Bank).
And in this specific case:
"Everything to the right" = more settlements in the West Bank, some of which are created via private settler attacks and some of which are state created.
"Block movement back to the left" = The state getting rid of those settlements.
Philosophical question regarding the West Bank:
How is what Israel is doing in building settlements in the West Bank any different to any other similar historical situation.
Wars have been fought since forever.
One country wins a war and over time, the frontier changes.
And that country takes over and occupies the territory it has won.
Now I am not saying that I agree with what Israel is doing in the West Bank.
As I have indicated, this is a purely a philosophical question.
The world tries to move on from such conquests. It should be a thing of the past. Russia's invasion of Ukraine wasn't just condemned by the West, but also by non-Western countries. Kenya's UN ambassador gave a good speech on it.
That being said, the specific matter of Israel building settlements has already been criticized and condemned internationally. Israel is ignoring all that and continuing it.
Why aren't Hamas sharing great tweets like this?
Understood.
As I said, I was not in favour of what Israel is doing. It was just something I wanted to question from a historical perspective.
I can understand them though.
Germany send millions to improve the infrastructure and living conditions in Gaza. Also pipes to improve and increase the water supply.
Apparently Hamas took these pipes out of the ground and built missiles with them.
And don't anybody tell me Hamas aren't the Palestinians. Without strong support of the population Hamas couldn't rule Gaza and going what they do.
Yes. Also another layer to the whole thing, the Israeli settlements also kinda ensure that any future two state solution will be extremely complicated. Cant be any Palestine, if there isnt any contiguous land left. It has been likened to negotiating over how to share a pizza while one of them continues to eat it.
Well that always happens on this place, in every thread. You just have to ignore or engage directly. You don't just deliver blanket dismissals and or insults. Again you've decided people who don't read your posts are juvenile. People don't have to read everyone's posts, we have an ignore function for that reason. People have all sorts of reasons to ignore other posters.
That is a very fair point.
I do think that Hamas is trying to draw the IDF into a trap.
By that, I am referring to 2 things.
1. They are obviously concerned by the potential warming of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia. And by attacking Israel and the expected reprisals, they would be hoping that support for Israel would suffer.
2. For Israel to defeat Hamas, they are going to have to destroy the vast labyrinth of tunnels.
And achieving that is going to result in significant loss of life.
If Israel is actually intent on destroying Hamas, it is going to be extremely difficult.
It genuinely baffles me you even think it's a question that needs to be asked.
You probably are also support Putin who always claims that NATO east expansion is the real reason for the Ukrainian war and his special military operation is just a symptom from it.
The Israel Palestine conflict goes far beyond Hamas. It started 1947 when the Palestinians (Arab world) didn't acknowledge the UN resolution 181 and started the war against the Jews. 2 further major wars followed. 1967 and 1973 both started by the Arabs.
Remind me which country Israel is at war with in the West Bank?
Can you clarify any other countries currently in the world are settling land that is internationally recognised as not their own?
If Israel also enslaved Palestinians, would you be asking how this is different to any similar historical situation from a philosophical point of view?
Such a brilliant and deep philosophical question to wake up to. A real food for thought.
You tell me please.
You've posted excellent sources and made some level-headed comments. But you've posted a video of a terrorist shooting a dog, and a report of a kibbutz attacked followed by your fantasy of "bullets in the head of terrorist scum." If you are concerned about the consumption of grief, the place to start is 'your posts.'
So you never question what is going on???
There was plenty of conflict before 1947, it seems an arbitrary date to begin the analysis.
Palestinians (Arab world) and "the Arabs".
So you're just looking for reasons to be able to say "bombing civilians in Gaza is ok"?
Your first point.. I did say historically.
Your second point. Is Israel not enslaving Palestinians.
Edit.
There are dozens of posts in this thread saying that is the case.
Its not that they have choice, there's a democratic society there and Hamas is some kind, nice organization which would just say its ok we'll let someone else govern the people.
Love the Palestinians (Arab world) part.
In any case it suited Israel nicely who then banished hundreds of thousands Palestitans from the land and burned hundreds of villages to the ground.
Russia and China, quite blatantly and recently, I might add.
Your 'philosophical question' is predicated on Israel being in war in West Bank and winning the land in West Bank in such war on which the settlements are continuing to be built. So, I ask again, in your 'philosophical question' which country is Israel in war with?
It’s not their land or their property. I’m not convinced you’re asking all these offensive questions under the guise of philosophy. You know people in Israel you said. How would they feel if I went over to their house, took over the house and kicked them out? How would they react if I said how is it any different to any other historical situation?
Oh dear. I have offended you again. What a shame.
I have 2 questions....
1. If it is an open air prison then why isn't Egypt accused of imprisoning them? They won't let them into Egypt and Israel won't let them into Israel. Its a border wall. No country let's you past thier borders unless you have a valid passport/visa. Yeah I know Israel stole their land and I'm not condoning them. But its not really a prison. They just can't cross into different countries.
2. How the fk are Israel planning on taking out Hamas? Most of them are wearing civilian clothes in amongst the civilians. What are the gonna do? Just kill every fighting age man? 15-55?
1. If it is an open air prison then why isn't Egypt accused of imprisoning them? They won't let them into Egypt and Israel won't let them into Israel. Its a border wall. No country let's you past thier borders unless you have a valid passport/visa. Yeah I know Israel stole their land and I'm not condoning them. But its not really a prison. They just can't cross into different countries.
2. How the fk are Israel planning on taking out Hamas? Most of them are wearing civilian clothes in amongst the civilians. What are the gonna do? Just kill every fighting age man? 15-55?
But guys he said he's not defending what Israel is doing. Just asking questions.
Shame he wont answer any questions he's asked.
Shame he wont answer any questions he's asked.
Philosophically, did Lucy Letby really do anything that Myra Hindley and Rose West hadn't done before?
Not that I agree with what she did, of course. Just for no reason pointing out that people have been killing kids forever. Someone gets their hands on a kid, they kill the kid. So, y'know.
Not that I agree with what she did, of course. Just for no reason pointing out that people have been killing kids forever. Someone gets their hands on a kid, they kill the kid. So, y'know.
Your 'question' was essentially just a statement, saying 'well this stuff has always happened, what's the difference here?'. It signifies that you basically don't see any issue with past occurrences of oppression and colonisation. If you did, then there would never be a 'question' to ask.