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

[NotThatSoph]

Do we really need this kind of bigotry and wish for harm here?

I'm sorry, but you taking umbrage at people wishing harm on government officials is a little bit funny. You usually include a detailed desciption of how they should be harmed.

 

[Giggsyking]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Its the Palestinians in the westbank fault, why didn't they accept a life like Gaza?

Oh wait..

Its worse there.

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

"Right to defend themselves"

Never heard a more pernicious, slimy and hypernormal statement tbh.

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

Its the Palestinians in the westbank fault, why didn't they accept a life like Gaza?

Oh wait..

Its worse there.

I remember the first time I watched the Louis Thereoux doc on the settlers in the West Bank and it was hard not to despise the settlers being interviewed because they were so egregiously horrible and so down right contemptuous. Made my skin crawl watching people treat others so poorly with a smile on their face. Grim.

 

[Giggsyking]

I remember the first time I watched the Louis Thereoux doc on the settlers in the West Bank and it was hard not to despise the settlers being interviewed because they were so egregiously horrible and so down right contemptuous. Made my skin crawl watching people treat others so poorly with a smile on their face. Grim.

They are horrible, with a terrorist mindset.

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Yes they did.

Hmmm didn't Ireland call for a ceasefire?

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[That_Bloke]

I don’t have a particularly well-informed opinion on the finer details of what went down, beyond what is publicly known. I don’t see much reason to believe that either Barak or Arafat were disingenuous in their engagement or determined to sabotage the talks, but both were hostages to a certain degree to the rejectionists in their respective societies. And it’s probably true to say that structure of the entire process was wrong-headed.

More broadly speaking my general feeling is that the maximum that any Israeli politician could plausibly have offered would never have met the minimum that Arafat could plausibly have accepted. I think Israeli society could, by the end of the 90s, have been brought along by strong, determined leadership to grudgingly accept something like what a lame-duck Olmert offered in 2008. But Peres and Barak were not those leaders, Netanyahu and Sharon were not interested, and Rabin we’ll never know (his publicly stated vision of a Palestinian “state” was less generous than what Barak offered, although perhaps the tide of history could have carried him further). The second intifada ended that brief window.

In any case I’m not convinced that any Palestinian leader could sign off on what is essentially defeat in the eyes of too many Palestinians. In any hypothetical two-state solution the Palestinians are still conceding considerably more in terms of what their national movement has historically been struggling for than the Israelis. Palestinian rejectionism is a very consistent and, in my opinion, historically dominant characteristic of Palestinian politics and society, but somewhat under-accounted for in discussions like this due to the massive power differential separating the two parties. For all the talk of “of course Israel is going nowhere”, etc., I’m not sure many people understand just how deeply ingrained the idea that Israel is destined to fall is in Palestinian society.

Yes, to my eyes it's a fairer and much more accurate assessment of the situation back then than what I've depicted.

I've had a hard time to cross check my sources because of how astonishingly few written records were made about such an important meeting and I failed to encompass the expectations of the Israeli society which Barak had to deal with. Nor to understand that Barak was not Rabin, in terms of charisma or leadership. Although as you mentioned, we'll never know how the latter would've lead these negotiations, if he ever did.

I was just driven me mad by seeing the common trope (and false imo) served ad nauseam, that Israel offered Arafat and the Palestinians some kind of a deal of the century that they were dumb enough to refuse. I personally find the implications quite unpleasant.

Your last part, in particular the bolded one, brings questions I've never really considered until now. In the same way, would it be fair to say that the idea of a truly independent palestinian state was never in the mind of the Israeli society, or am I just searching for a false equivalence?

 

[RoadTrip]

Have any of you also considered that, even if an agreement was signed then, it may not actually have stood the test of time? Why do we think it would have been the game changing event people think it would. It’s clear the Israeli right detest Palestinians. What’s to say they wouldn’t have still used their massive military and alliances to further their cause in another way? Or, what’s to say that the staunchest Hamas leaders who do not believe in Jews and Israel would still not have committed terrorism?

I ask with a bit of “I don’t see why it would have materially changed the trajectory of where we are”, but I am also interested. Sure I understand the creation of a genuine recognised state does create a greater inertia or barrier to destruction, but let’s say Gaza was part of a recognised Palestinian state… would the reaction after the 7th have been any different? Could argue 7th wouldn’t have happened if there was Gaza not controlled by Hamas, but if it wasn’t that it could easily have been something else. It would only take one thing to draw this reaction. I dunno, maybe I’m wrong.

 

[RoadTrip]

"Right to defend themselves"

Never heard a more pernicious, slimy and hypernormal statement tbh.

It’s odious. It’d be a very interesting case study to see how something that is at its purest a valid and legitimate concern has been turned into a justification for such human atrocity.

 

[Revan]

Have any of you also considered that, even if an agreement was signed then, it may not actually have stood the test of time? Why do we think it would have been the game changing event people think it would. It’s clear the Israeli right detest Palestinians. What’s to say they wouldn’t have still used their massive military and alliances to further their cause in another way? Or, what’s to say that the staunchest Hamas leaders who do not believe in Jews and Israel would still not have committed terrorism?

I ask with a bit of “I don’t see why it would have materially changed the trajectory of where we are”, but I am also interested. Sure I understand the creation of a genuine recognised state does create a greater inertia or barrier to destruction, but let’s say Gaza was part of a recognised Palestinian state… would the reaction after the 7th have been any different? Could argue 7th wouldn’t have happened if there was Gaza not controlled by Hamas, but if it wasn’t that it could easily have been something else. It would only take one thing to draw this reaction. I dunno, maybe I’m wrong.

The lives of Palestinians would have been infinitely improved, which likely would have resulted in less terrorist attacks.

Less terrorist attacks and no second infidata also likely would have resulted in lower strengthening of the Israel’s right wing. Fewer settlers there, for a start, would have made Israel less interested for the West Bank. Better lives in Gaza, less chance of Hamas winning there. And so on.

Of course, it might have failed. There is some change that Sharon might have decided to ignore the deal. There is every chance that Palestinians would have ousted Arafat if he accepted that. But I also think that it was the last time the conflict had a chance of getting solved somehow positively for the Palestinians.

 

[RoadTrip]

The lives of Palestinians would have been infinitely improved, which likely would have resulted in less terrorist attacks.

Less terrorist attacks and no second infidata also likely would have resulted in lower strengthening of the Israel’s right wing. Less settlers there, got a start, woo have made Israel less interested for the West Bank.

Of course, it might have failed. There is some change that Sharon might have decided to ignore the deal. There is every chance that Palestinians would have ousted Arafat if he accepted that. But I also think that it was the last time the conflict had a chance of getting solved somehow positively for the Palestinians.

Logical trail of thought. But on the other hand, hatred is so entrenched. I do question / wonder if such an agreement was signed, and if it was considered to be so unjust/unfair, would have survived. I guess for the average citizen yes, things would be significantly improved. But for those already on the far sides of the political spectrum, I don’t think the dial would have moved them back. But perhaps the collective change in mindset might have had a big impact on the end.

 

[Giggsyking]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[2cents]

In the same way, would it be fair to say that the idea of a truly independent palestinian state was never in the mind of the Israeli society, or am I just searching for a false equivalence?

I think there was genuine enthusiasm for a two-state settlement among a fairly significant number of Israelis only during the 90s, to the point that the idea came to be seriously considered and debated across the political spectrum, i.e. it became a realistic prospect in the eyes of most, even if a majority regarded it with little or no enthusiasm or continued to reject. That might have been enough to carry it over the line under the right circumstances. But that’s an idea of a Palestinian state in a rather vague sense, and it’s the finer details that raise the question of whether the proposed state could be “truly independent” given consistently-held Israeli demands over security (demilitarized state, Jordan Valley, etc.).

 

[ZupZup]

"Right to defend themselves"

Never heard a more pernicious, slimy and hypernormal statement tbh.

Not sure if you are U.K based, but here we have politicians and media constantly spouting “Israel has a right to defend HERSELF”.

They are literally gendering Israel to make it sound like some sort of damsel in distress. Vomit inducing stuff.

 

[owlo]

[/QUOTE]

In any case I’m not convinced that any Palestinian leader could sign off on what is essentially defeat in the eyes of too many Palestinians. In any hypothetical two-state solution the Palestinians are still conceding considerably more in terms of what their national movement has historically been struggling for than the Israelis. Palestinian rejectionism is a very consistent and, in my opinion, historically dominant characteristic of Palestinian politics and society, but somewhat under-accounted for in discussions like this due to the massive power differential separating the two parties. For all the talk of “of course Israel is going nowhere”, etc., I’m not sure many people understand just how deeply ingrained the idea that Israel is destined to fall is in Palestinian society.

I'm interested to know how much of this is 'Palestinian' nationalism, and how much is an imported 'pan-arab' nationalism at its core. Do these values come from within, or are they reinforced externally by parties using Palestinians as a proxy to counterbalance. And how much of it is predicated upon opinions of Jews as weak and ineffective. They seem much more accepting that they were 'defeated' by arabs, Kuwaitis, Jordanians etc despite those being far weaker countries, but somehow hold this view that Israel is destined to fall. Why? It's a curious position to hold as a society; most oppressed cultures know when they are being dominated historically and disperse or reallign.

I guess my main question is how much of this identity is Palestinian, and how much is an imported pan-arabism that's unrealistic looking in.

 

[owlo]

Yes, to my eyes it's a fairer and much more accurate assessment of the situation back then than what I've depicted.

I've had a hard time to cross check my sources because of how astonishingly few written records were made about such an important meeting and I failed to encompass the expectations of the Israeli society which Barak had to deal with. Nor to understand that Barak was not Rabin, in terms of charisma or leadership. Although as you mentioned, we'll never know how the latter would've lead these negotiations, if he ever did.

I was just driven me mad by seeing the common trope (and false imo) served ad nauseam, that Israel offered Arafat and the Palestinians some kind of a deal of the century that they were dumb enough to refuse. I personally find the implications quite unpleasant.

Your last part, in particular the bolded one, brings questions I've never really considered until now. In the same way, would it be fair to say that the idea of a truly independent palestinian state was never in the mind of the Israeli society, or am I just searching for a false equivalence?

When I was a kid in the 90s it was discussed quite openly in school etc. We even did a project on going on holiday to Palestine. It was in the mainstream and wasn't ridiculed as a discussion point. I suspect that undercurrent still might have been there in the right circumstances, until the 7th. I truly think its gone for a generation though now.

Looking back, any Palestinian state would probably have been a rump state though; any terrorism would have still brought airstrikes and tanks. And borders would still be controlled so it didn't become another Lebanon. But it would have been better for the people?

Being supreme Jewking sounds like a great job. Thing is though, in all seriousness, this kind of mass movement to a random strip of land of one of the peoples made far more sense for the Jews back in the early 20th century because they were already geographically spread out massively, many European Jews had had it with Europe and Europeans were still the masters of the world and drawing borders and fecking things up worldwide. Probably easier to tell a German Jew or Polish Jew that you're going to Zanzibar or Canada, when their family have not stepped foot in the Middle East for many many generations, than it is to force either set of people out, one who have been there for hundreds of years and see the land as their own, the other who've now built a state there and believe that God/history gave them that land.

I do think that Israel would have thrived in Europe. Would have been great to punish the Germans for what they'd done too by giving them a juicy chunk of German land. Alas, they decided to punish the Palestinians instead and the rest, as we say, is history.

When I say its unprecedented, I mean the entire context. There are situations where the Palestinians themselves have been forced out entirely (Kuwait), situations where countries force out entire groups of refugees who already have a state (as Pakistan look set to do soon with Afghan refugees, Turkey with Syrians, Denmark too I think), situations where there is ethnic cleansing of a people, who then return to their 'historical/ancestral homelands (Armenians of NK, Germans being ethnically cleansed around Europe post WW2 to ensure a German state couldn't use them as an excuse for future war), mass population transfers to a new state (Muslims out of India to Pakistan, Hindus and Sikhs out of Pakistan to India) and ethnic groups who are stateless but who inhabit their 'historic' homelands and can potentially have some autonomy (the Kurds) but I cannot think of an example in recent history where a people are left stateless, with no 'home' state to return to, are ethnically cleansed with nowhere to go. An ethnic group with no homeland and who will eventually likely end up dispersed worldwide.

Maybe the Rohingya are the closest example I can think of? I don't know enough about the history to know whether they're 'ethnically' Bengali etc. Another really tragic story, with I guess a closer example of a country that the international community genuinely has no control or leverage over.

I don't think I made a direct comparison with Russian casualties (unless I'm mistaken). I said that some people on here are screaming iran/China (and I guess also Russia) when people criticise Israel, as if 2 of those 3 countries aren't being heavily censured at the moment by Western governments, whereas one is being actively clapped on and provided with weapons.

The Europeans wanted Germany for themselves after the devastation caused, it was simply too juicy to give up. No chance they gave up their last chance to colonise! They possibly wouldn't even have given up Israel had they known about the natural gas reserves now. I agree with the bold though; post WWII was about rebuilding shattered lives and communities, and I think that could have been done anywhere. And integrated far more easily without constantly needing to worry about destruction. At the time though, I think it would have needed to be outside Europe, and not sure how African integration would have gone; it was too raw. Canada or the US probably. (Though it's an interesting thing to wonder, if an Israel in Tanzania for example could have modernized East Africa and protected its independence somewhat. But at that point, the roots of Zionism had been growing for 50 years, and settlers had been settling. Somebody could/should have said, 'hey Alberta is huge, it only has 200,000 people who are white and didn't fight for the Nazis, its far from Europe, you can simply integrate them there.' and I'm not sure rational Jews would have said no.

It happens in Africa quite often unfortunately, or did in the 2000's/2010's. We'd often see villages/towns 'cleansed' by warlords unable to return (on threat of death) and not accepted by the neighbouring country/warlord if they got to live. But on this scale, you're probably right.

 

[Denis79]

If the people responsible for these apparent war crimes aren't held responsible in a war tribunal. We in the west should just shut up from now on and get off our high horse. How is system of waging war any different to that of the murderous regime in Russia? It's ok because it's Israel? Nah I can't watch this shit on TV anymore, this is too much for me...

 

[Pintu]

Let's not shine a positive light on Obama. Obama drone bombing weddings and funerals is literally a meme.

Obama was not really the main topic here... But just stating a fact. His administration abstained on an important vote against Israeli settlements... That was the first time (and last time), since 1980, that the UNSC managed to specifically condemn the Israeli settlements in its resolutions.

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

Not sure if you are U.K based, but here we have politicians and media constantly spouting “Israel has a right to defend HERSELF”.

They are literally gendering Israel to make it sound like some sort of damsel in distress. Vomit inducing stuff.

Gross

 

[WeePat]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Clear as day..

I’m old enough to remember Je Suis Charlie.

 

[GameOn]

I will just say this:

The people acting so outraged about the events in Gaza right now were awfully quiet when the Hamas terrorists butchered hundreds of civilians (many teens and women) that were simply attending a music festival.

There are many things to criticize about Israel and their settlement policy (especially recently), but the perpetrator victim repentance in this case is truly astonishing.

Especially since it's also mostly leftists that defend actual terrorists who promote a "lifestyle" that leftists usually detest and demonstrate against.

I feel sorry for all the civilians - both in Israel and Gaza - that aren't full of hate and were just dragged into a war they don't want to be part of.

 

[JPRouve]

Yeah, ain't gonna happen.

France isn't what it was in this particular matter to say the least, but there's no way this comes to pass.

November 2015 truly fecked them up though.

What do you mean?

 

[Maticmaker]

If all the victim countries would just rollover and die, then all major wars can be averted.

Unfortunately, from the dawn of time.... 'Might is right' and migration, whether involuntary and/or illegal or planned and/or agreed, changes the face of the planet and will continue to do so as climate change progresses; wars simply accelerate the process.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

Especially since it's also mostly leftists that defend actual terrorists who promote a "lifestyle" that leftists usually detest and demonstrate against.

I feel like people have been repeating this argument for a while without stopping to think whether it even makes sense.

Like, do you think leftists should be opposed to government healthcare because some of it goes to right-wingers?

 

[ZupZup]

I will just say this:

The people acting so outraged about the events in Gaza right now were awfully quiet when the Hamas terrorists butchered hundreds of civilians (many teens and women) that were simply attending a music festival.

What Hamas did on the 7th was abhorrent and deserves outrage… but clearly Israel’s quick response to start bombing the Gaza Strip would have tempered the reaction of most leftists, and understandably so. The retaliation started within hours, not days… and everyone could see what was coming.

 

[JPRouve]

I will just say this:

The people acting so outraged about the events in Gaza right now were awfully quiet when the Hamas terrorists butchered hundreds of civilians (many teens and women) that were simply attending a music festival.

There are many things to criticize about Israel and their settlement policy (especially recently), but the perpetrator victim repentance in this case is truly astonishing.

Especially since it's also mostly leftists that defend actual terrorists who promote a "lifestyle" that leftists usually detest and demonstrate against.

I feel sorry for all the civilians - both in Israel and Gaza - that aren't full of hate and were just dragged into a war they don't want to be part of.

Who are those people you are talking about? As far as I have seen nearly everyone considers that Hamas is a terrorist organization and that their actions on October 7th were despicable.

Now the same can't be said about what was happening prior to October 7th which is illustrated by the euphemism that you used when you describe terrorism and murder as settlement policy and also claim that it's recent when it's not.

 

[GameOn]

I feel like people have been repeating this argument for a while without stopping to think whether it even makes sense.

Like, do you think leftists should be opposed to government healthcare because some of it goes to right-wingers?

You think your standard western leftist would support the society that Hamas & Co. want to happen (endgoal: caliphate), if you just wrote everything on a paper and handed it to the leftist without saying who proposed those ideas?

 

[Mike Smalling]

You think your standard western leftist would support the society that Hamas & Co. want to happen (endgoal: caliphate), if you just wrote everything on a paper and handed it to the leftist without saying who proposed those ideas?

I challenge you to find one post in this thread that directly supports Hamas. Everyone condemns Hamas and calls them what they are - a terrorist organization.

 

[Stookie]

They are horrible, with a terrorist mindset.

I lived there for 20 months, travelled, worked, backpacked. And yeah… pretty much what you said. This was the early 90s so much different to now. But they were just generally horrible. Anyone who wasn’t Jewish was treated accordingly. So when I was working I got quite close to a lot of Arabs who were also working there and, oddly, quite a few Russians. But the Israelis, they didn’t want to know at all. You worked for them and that was that. They always tried to stiff you on pay as well. So we had to agree to get half up front and half when a job was completed. One guy pulled a gun on us after we’d finished paving his front yard. Told us to feck off. Well you’re not going to argue are you? The Russian lads I worked got drunk about a month later, went back and put all his windows through. Good times.

 

[africanspur]

I will just say this:

The people acting so outraged about the events in Gaza right now were awfully quiet when the Hamas terrorists butchered hundreds of civilians (many teens and women) that were simply attending a music festival.

There are many things to criticize about Israel and their settlement policy (especially recently), but the perpetrator victim repentance in this case is truly astonishing.

Especially since it's also mostly leftists that defend actual terrorists who promote a "lifestyle" that leftists usually detest and demonstrate against.

I feel sorry for all the civilians - both in Israel and Gaza - that aren't full of hate and were just dragged into a war they don't want to be part of.

Can you point to some of these people on this thread?

Can you also point me to your reaction when the attacks happened? I can only see these 2 posts of yours on here.

Do you also think when 'leftists' are criticising the indiscriminate attacks, including on an ambulance yesterday, as well as clearly building up to bombing a hospital, that they're doing so because they want to live in a Hamas run society?

If I criticise the Hamas attacks for instance, does that mean I want to live in a country that occupies others' land and imposes a system of apartheid?

 

[GameOn]

I challenge you to find one post in this thread that directly supports Hamas. Everyone condemns Hamas and calls them what they are - a terrorist organization.

Then we are fine.

You can criticize Israel and their very questionable policy all you want, totally fine, as long as you rightfully view Hamas as terrorists and don't act like Palestine (in general) is a saint in that conflict.

 

[2cents]

I'm interested to know how much of this is 'Palestinian' nationalism, and how much is an imported 'pan-arab' nationalism at its core. Do these values come from within, or are they reinforced externally by parties using Palestinians as a proxy to counterbalance. And how much of it is predicated upon opinions of Jews as weak and ineffective. They seem much more accepting that they were 'defeated' by arabs, Kuwaitis, Jordanians etc despite those being far weaker countries, but somehow hold this view that Israel is destined to fall. Why? It's a curious position to hold as a society; most oppressed cultures know when they are being dominated historically and disperse or reallign.

I guess my main question is how much of this identity is Palestinian, and how much is an imported pan-arabism that's unrealistic looking in.

The Palestinian and general Arab view and experience of Zionism and Israel has been that it’s a racist settler-colonial project driven by conspiratorial imperialism. And hence, by the international standards of our time, fundamentally unjust, unnatural, illegitimate, and destined to collapse. Resistance to it was therefore always inevitable, whatever the Palestinians’ ethnicity or religion, etc. And there are plenty of contemporary examples they can and do draw upon to give hope and strength to the belief that the righteous cause can and will triumph over apparently overwhelming power - Algeria, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc. We saw Khalid Mash’al reference these just a couple of weeks ago.

But of course Palestinians draw on their own Islamo-Arabic heritage to make sense of their plight and give strength to their cause. And that is the same heritage that has, to a large degree, shaped both Arab and Palestinian nationalism, which are historically entwined. If one goes looking in that heritage for negative traditions concerning Jews, examples of Arab-Muslim heroism in the face of Western intrusion, and ultimately a vision of the region where the Arab Muslims are masters of their own destiny, then there is plenty to be found, and it’s fair to state that these have given shape and form to, and helped sustain, a Palestinian resistance that would always have existed anyway.

 

[GameOn]

If I criticise the Hamas attacks for instance, does that mean I want to live in a country that occupies others' land and imposes a system of apartheid?

And that is precisely the kind of perpetrator victim repentance I talked about.

 

[africanspur]

And that is precisely the kind of perpetrator victim repentance I talked about.

Can you answer my questions?

Ironically on this thread I've criticised Hamas and its attacks more than you have.

 

[Mike Smalling]

Then we are fine.

You can criticize Israel and their very questionable policy all you want, totally fine, as long as you don't act like Palestine is a saint in that conflict.

Well, Hamas and Palestine are not the same thing. No reasonable person that hopes for a free Palestine under a two-state solution wants Hamas to rule it.

 

[JPRouve]

And that is precisely the kind of perpetrator victim repentance I talked about.

That's a bit confusing to me, who are the perpetrators and victims in your point?

 

[GameOn]

Can you answer my questions?

I don't answer stupid strawmen/rhetorical questions from people who would only twist my answer to fit their narrative anyway.

You can now gloat that "I knew you had no answer" or whatever, but it simply isn't worth my time/nerves.

 

[GameOn]

That's a bit confusing to me, who are the perpetrators and victims in your point?

perpetrators: Hamas
victims: civilians in both Israel and Gaza

 

[JPRouve]

perpetrators: Hamas
victims: civilians in both Israel and Gaza

So somehow Israel are on the victim side even though in 2023, up until October 7th Israel's "settlers policy" caused 5 times more murders than Hamas?

Do you spot the problem in the point you are trying to make, especially when I have seen no one suggest that Hamas were victims?

 

[VorZakone]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date