> I'm following your reasoning. Most West Bank residents are terrorist supporters and therefore they should be...killed?
There probably needs to be some sort of serious de-radicalization process in the West Bank if there is to be any chance of ending the occupation without starting another war.
Israel was taught that unilateral disengagement is not a viable strategy for peace, it didn't work in Gaza and it didn't work in Lebanon either with Hezbollah, peace in the region comes from bilateral peace agreements that are agreed to by both sides(i.e. like with Jordan/Egypt) and not from unilateral actions on the part of Israel(like the 2005 Gaza disengagement).
Do you really believe Israel wants to stop occupying the West Bank?
Just this month Israel killed 2 brothers (children), because they were identified as a threat. They continue to expand settlements, and they bomb during ceasefires. Can you give me any example of Israel really attempting peace? 2005 disengagement, but they have the levers to keep Gazans on the brink of death, by bottlenecking food, water, etc. Just because it's called disengagement, doesn't mean it really is. Don't accept their propaganda at face value, or anyone's, obviously.
"Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas ... This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank."
> Do you really believe Israel wants to stop occupying the West Bank?
In the past there has been some desire to do so, although that's faded quite a bit as it has become clear there is at the moment no real partner for peace on the Palestinian side. Palestinians need a leader who is truly interested in peace, sort of like Sadat was in Egypt who was critical to normalizing relations with Israel. Ultimately what many in Israel want is a real peace deal, but without a party on the other side that's going to be pretty difficult.
> Just this month Israel killed 2 brothers (children), because they were identified as a threat.
I'm not sure what specific incident this is in reference to but there are plenty of security threats in both the West Bank and Gaza, and it's pretty well known that Hamas uses child soldiers as well as human shields.
> They continue to expand settlements
I agree this is problematic, but terrorism is likely only going to encourage settlement expansion as settlements are seen by some in Israel as providing a security barrier. Israel is a country lacking in strategic depth[0] and the West Bank is especially problematic due to its proximity cities like Tel Aviv. After the previous failed unilateral disengagements in Gaza and Lebanon I think it's extremely unlikely for Israel to continue with that strategy.
> they bomb during ceasefires
Often in retaliation for ceasefire violations on the part of terrorists.
> Can you give me any example of Israel really attempting peace?
For example the 2000 Camp David Summit, where Israel made a number of offers that Palestinian leadership rejected without making any concrete counteroffers, this peace attempt immediately preceded the Second Intifada. Part of the reason Israel is often wary of peace attempts like this is due to Palestinian leadership not negotiating in good faith.
> 2005 disengagement, but they have the levers to keep Gazans on the brink of death, by bottlenecking food, water, etc.
What do you expect Israel to do when Hamas starts attacking Israel and stockpiling weapons. If Israel hadn't been attacked I think it would have been pretty unlikely for them to have blockaded Gaza.
> Just because it's called disengagement, doesn't mean it really is. Don't accept their propaganda at face value, or anyone's, obviously.
They evicted every Israeli from Gaza and gave it a try, clearly unilateral disengagement just doesn't work, and in the case of Lebanon with Hezbollah Israel had a similar issue and there wasn't even a blockade there.
Israel came to Palestine, not the other way around. If someone took over your home, and offered even 90% of it to you, and invader keeps 10%, you would reject it. But alas we are here. Hopefully we can get rid of the evil parts of both governments, and make a new single state for everyone. Call it something new. All peace interested parties can be a part of the new government, ridding Netanyahu/Hamas types from the process.
Also by any chance if you have a response to the Netanyahu quote I gave.
> Israel came to Palestine, not the other way around.
Palestine wasn't ever an independent state. Israel was formed by the division of a British Mandate.
> If someone took over your home, and offered even 90% of it to you, and invader keeps 10%, you would reject it.
Jews immigrated often by purchasing land in the region from landowners(often absentee) and then sometimes evicting the tenants, so it's a bit more complex. Characterizing it as a foreign invasion is somewhat misleading, Palestinians also rejected the UN partition plan and started a war to try and remove all the Jews as well, with many Jews subsequently being driven from their homes throughout the middle east, so it's not like they have any other homes to go back to either. Being on the losing side of a war also tends to result in people losing land/homes in any case, I have grandparents that lost their home due to living in country that was on the losing side of a war as well and they made no attempts to get their homes/land back at all, sometimes you just have to move on.
> Hopefully we can get rid of the evil parts of both governments, and make a new single state for everyone.
This is basically unworkable from both sides for various reasons. Israel will essentially never give up their Jewish majority by giving citizenship to all Palestinians, especially given the security threats to Jews historically. That's one reason a two state solution is widely considered the only viable option.
> All peace interested parties can be a part of the new government, ridding Netanyahu/Hamas types from the process.
This seems pretty unlikely to ever work in practice, at least not without massive changes in opinions amongst both Palestinians and Israelis.
> Also by any chance if you have a response to the Netanyahu quote I gave.
What about it? I'm not much of a fan of Netanyahu in general for various reasons, but Israel is a democracy so he can be replaced.
Israel was formed also because Zionists were doing terrorist actions against the British forces and the Arabs. It wasn't just a legal process and Israel was a terrorist state from the start of its existence.
> Israel was formed also because Zionists were doing terrorist actions against the British forces and the Arabs. It wasn't just a legal process and Israel was a terrorist state from the start of its existence.
There were also a number of of Pogroms as well as back and forth retaliation/attacks, organizations like the Irgun did not just pop up randomly out of nowhere.
You seen to have a very one-sided view of history when the reality of the situation has a lot more nuance. That's the thing with this conflict, you can somewhat easily create a narrative that any particular side is at fault depending on how far back you go in history(Jews lived in the region well before Muhammad was even born which certainly makes any notion of one side being more native highly problematic) as well as by cherry-picking facts. It's basically a sort of endless back and forth retaliation.
The vast majority of Israel's Jews don't come from Palestine and descend very remotely from Hebrews. It's akin to say that Christians owe a right to Palestine as well because Christians, who are a successful "jewish fork", lived there before.
The justification of the Irgun terrorism because of the Arab riots is comical - then does that mean that groups such as the Hamas are justified in their existence as they resist against the Israeli colonizers? The Irgun was a political organization at its core, which also heavily targeted the British administration, including assassinations and bombings.
I think that it's not "one-sided" to say that Israel should stop supporting the colonization and dismantle the current colonies. Which is simply an application of the international law.
That's probably true: of Jewish people in Israel, "most" originate in the MENA countries surrounding Israel, both in the Levant and from places like Morocco, Tunisia, Yemen, and Iraq. As the Palestinians were driven from their homes during the 1948 war, so too were Jewish people from their homes throughout the rest of the region.
> The vast majority of Israel's Jews don't come from Palestine and descend very remotely from Hebrews. It's akin to say that Christians owe a right to Palestine as well because Christians, who are a successful "jewish fork", lived there before.
My point was just that both sides have arguably legitimate claims to being native to the region, depending on how you look at things.
> The justification of the Irgun terrorism because of the Arab riots is comical - then does that mean that groups such as the Hamas are justified in their existence as they resist against the Israeli colonizers?
My point was that this conflict is characterized by lots of back and forth retaliation. I'm not justifying terrorism from either side however. In any case the Irgun was disbanded following the establishment of the state of Israel.
> I think that it's not "one-sided" to say that Israel should stop supporting the colonization and dismantle the current colonies.
Unilateral disengagement doesn't work historically, I agree there should be a negotiated peace but at the moment neither side seems to be all that interested in figuring out a solution.
> Which is simply an application of the international law.
International law is far from clear in general, especially since the original occupiers of Gaza and the West Bank(Egypt and Jordan) relinquished all claims to the land.
> My point was just that both sides have arguably legitimate claims to being native to the region, depending on how you look at things.
The fact that you consider that a blond ashkenazi ukrainian jew has the same "legitimate claim" than a Palestinian to live in the West Bank tells me all about your bias here. A large part of Palestinians have lived uninterrupted for 2000 years there - you can find sects such as the Samaritans that were referenced in the Bible. And even then, it's stupid to consider a religious book as a sufficient proof for a "claim".
> Irgun
Most of the actions of the Irgun were assassinations against the British, which weren't exactly doing pogroms in Palestine at the time. The Irgun was a terrorist organization, Israel continued to operate with the same rulebook after.
> Unilateral disengagement doesn't work historically
Israel decided unilaterally to steal, colonize and support settler violence. The argument "but both parties don't want peace" is really a manipulation when there are 250 settler attacks per month and the Israeli police refuses to act.[0]
What are the options for Palestinians, when every night settlers come to their houses, point guns and lasers at them, wait for half an hour, then leave? (Documented in Louis Theroux's "The Settlers"). The only option is to leave, which is why settlers do this with the support of the military.
If Israel wanted peace, it would stop this: the balance of power is so unbalanced that it's hard to blame Palestinians for not wanting to give their last sovereignty rights. With the same line of thinking one could argue that Afghani women could do some efforts to be nice to their husbands, heh.
> International law is far from clear in general, especially since the original occupiers of Gaza and the West Bank(Egypt and Jordan) relinquished all claims to the land.
> The fact that you consider that a blond ashkenazi ukrainian jew has the same "legitimate claim" than a Palestinian to live in the West Bank tells me all about your bias here. A large part of Palestinians have lived uninterrupted for 2000 years there - you can find sects such as the Samaritans that were referenced in the Bible. And even then, it's stupid to consider a religious book as a sufficient proof for a "claim".
When did I reference a religious book as proof of anything? I'm just referring to historical evidence in general regarding Jews being clearly native to the region as well. Jews have of course maintained a presence in Israel for the past 2000 years to various degrees.
> Most of the actions of the Irgun were assassinations against the British, which weren't exactly doing pogroms in Palestine at the time. The Irgun was a terrorist organization, Israel continued to operate with the same rulebook after.
The British were however preventing Jewish immigration to some degree and I'm not really convinced all those attacks on British officers would fall under terrorism due to the military nature of British officers...western countries preventing Jewish immigration is one of the reasons so many Jews died in the Holocaust. The Irgun was dissolved by the IDF shortly after Israel became independent, essentially by force[0], having rogue militias operating within ones borders tends to be incompatible with a stable state(i.e. Lebanon). It's interesting that you seem far more concerned about a short lived Jewish paramilitary organization with a history of some terrorism compared to the long standing Palestinian paramilitary organizations with an extensive history of terrorism.
> Israel decided unilaterally to steal, colonize and support settler violence. The argument "but both parties don't want peace" is really a manipulation when there are 250 settler attacks per month and the Israeli police refuses to act.
Unilateral disengagement simply does not lead to peace regardless of how the conflict started, this is mostly an argument that peace must be negotiated prior to disengagement from a conflict, otherwise the conflict will simply continue. Israel learned that disengagements without a negotiated peace deal like in Gaza/Lebanon do not work. Obviously right now neither side seems to be all that interested in negotiating peace, Israelis in general probably want to see some sort of peace agreement but after Oct 7 they are obviously not likely to think the Palestinians are really interested in peace(the second intifada came after peace negotiations failed, largely due to Palestinian leadership being unwilling to finalize a deal).
> the balance of power is so unbalanced that it's hard to blame Palestinians for not wanting to give their last sovereignty rights.
Maybe Palestinian leadership could try something new like making a good faith attempt at a real peace deal? I mean clearly terrorism as a strategy for them to get sovereignty rights isn't working out too well.
You're linking to an agreement that more or less deferred many things like borders to be negotiated at a later point...so yeah international law is not very clear in general.
Do you think that the religious israeli colonizers who steal the homes of Palestinians are normal people? How would you react if I opened your door, changed the lock, then pointed an AR-15 at you and told you to leave? Because it's what's happening right now in the West Bank.
If you speak French (or ask an native french speaker "indigenous" to translate), you can have an ultra-orthodox Israeli explaining how to steal land in the West Bank.
just for record, nobody in last few years was able to show 10 examples. or 5.
but only few had enough integrity to admit that they can't find any despite it been "well known fact"
The last link has hard data about violence (250 attacks per month). You can try to pilpul, but those people are clearly doing a human safari, with no law enforcement and consider Palestinians as animals. Defending this tells me all I need to know about your morality: in practice, you defend an ongoing, slow genocide that you well know it's happening. Everything has been documented, it's not just me that watches tik tok videos (I don't).
so you have no 10 examples of " "opened your door, changed the lock, then pointed an AR-15 at you and told you to leave".", right ?
btw, go look up how many attacks were against israeli in last month. also, UN/etc count anything instigated/initiated by palestinians as violence. it just conveniently forgets to provide context
so, while there is some (widely publicized) cases of violence, in a big picture it's overblow
10? Why not 20? 100? I gave you enough examples of settler violence. Louis Theroux's last documentary on settlers is a good representation, as it shows how settlers and NGOs have a clear agenda of displacing Palestinians, and commonly harass them.
Lol, Regavim. The far-right settler organisation that defends land stealers. The fact that it calls left-wing activists "anarchists" is a good indicator of the bias of the report. Their Ukrainian founder just said that new settlements will "bury the idea of a Palestinian State", after positive remarks on the idea of a "Greater Israel" and that his family was "real Palestinians", since "Palestinians are an invented people". And he is the current foreign affairs minister.
Kind of interesting also that the Israeli government puts pressure on Haaretz that is the last non-far right press outlet in the country. Are they just watching videos on Tik Tok, too?
actually gaza doesn't pay. PA pays. sometimes. because they all the time fight with hamas in gaza, and stop paying to israel for water/electricity in gaza
Because the purpose of Tinder, Hinge, etc. is to slowly destroy the social fabric of society to a point where people are perfectly malleable. More, more, more instant gratification. Less, less, less integrity.
We live in an age where the commercialization/cheapening of sex is celebrated by society but the natural result of that commercialization/cheapening isn't wanted.
Obviously this would help immensely, but this wasn't happening in the 90s when kids would bring guns to school for show and tell. Whatever changed, the better solution is to reverse that. What do you think?
Obviously I'm talking about reversing shootings, that's not possible. I'm talking about the culture that's developed, that has led to more angry kids. Angry enough to shoot their classmates. Wouldn't reversing that culture be the ultimate solution? Banning guns only delays the symptoms of this anger.
It's whataboutism because the statement also included that Israel is a terrorist state. By giving a list of attacks on Israel as a rebuttal, you are saying Israel is not a terrorist state because it's been attacked by Hamas. Do you see how silly that sounds? Since Hamas is a terrorist group for all of its viscousness, Israel must be as well, because the viciousness of Israel is more than 10 times that of Hamas.
reply