Submitted by Hiversitize t3_11cq47n in news
Comments
[deleted] t1_ja4onmv wrote
[deleted]
MGD109 t1_ja5nv6i wrote
Ah yes, cause naturally both sides refusing to ever talk again and just keep fighting till onside is completely wiped out is a much better solution right?
realrimurutempest t1_ja5cp10 wrote
Hey maybe if they pinky promise it’ll work this time lol.
macross1984 t1_ja4sejv wrote
It'll be nice if both sides can make it stick.
BubbaTee t1_ja53qfi wrote
One of the sides (Hamas) didn't even show up, and criticized the PA for talking to Israel.
Fochinell t1_ja5bqa5 wrote
I’m tepidly encouraged that the Palestinian Authority is finally negotiating with scarce regard for Gaza and Hamas’ input. If a peace plan were ever to emerge I genuinely hope the PA won’t have to greatly oppress the citizens of their new state to swallow and accept the deal especially under the existing huge dark cloud of PA illegitimacy. That’d only benefit Hamas and the other steadfast hothead militants they’re in competition with.
I’ve said for a long time here that no viable peace prospects between Israel and whatever Palestinian state may form will have any legitimacy without Jordan dedicating some of their own land across the river from the West Bank to this new Palestinian national entity. It is only right and proper. Needs to be part of any deal to put an end to Jordan playing the silly children’s game of being first in saying “Not It!” in relation to the Arabs in and around both the East and West Bank of the river.
blahbleh112233 t1_ja5gtf4 wrote
No viable peace is going to hold until Israel settles on formal boundaries that they won't violate. Hamas gets a lot of support because they can just point to the illegal Israeli settlement over yonder and tell you with 100% certainty that your house is gonna be on the next expansion list
MGD109 t1_ja5nsi1 wrote
Well that's true, but hasn't Israel already offered them multiple treaties that would give them ownerships of large sections (as in nearly 90%) of the disputed land, which Hamas has just rejected out of hand?
Trouble is I don't think their is going to be a viable peace until the people at the top of both nations no longer profit out of the war.
[deleted] t1_ja6wdcg wrote
[removed]
MeatsimPD t1_ja83ihg wrote
> hasn't Israel already offered them multiple treaties that would give them ownerships of large sections (as in nearly 90%) of the disputed land, which Hamas has just rejected out of hand?
No. You should provide sources for such a claim.
Here's the last peace deal offered and the only one to include formal borders. It was rejected by the Palestinians (who weren't invited to the meeting) and the Jewish settlers organization
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_peace_plan
Edit: Hamas has rejected peace offers, the Palestinian Authority has not rejected any offer for "90% of disputed territory" nor has such an offer been made
burningphoenix77888 t1_ja6prvv wrote
“Nearly 90%”
Aka, not all. The West Bank should be entirely Palestinian. The “peace deals” have the most fertile land in the West Bank stolen from Palestine and would have left Palestine a dead and demilitarized husk.
If there is to be peace. It must be the pre67 borders straight up. No modifications. No “land swaps”. The pre67 borders straight up is the only fair solution
JoeShmoAfro t1_ja7ne5i wrote
So in 48 Jewish leadership accepted the partition plan and established a new state. The Palestinian leadership rejected it, and together with the neighbouring arab states waged war on the new Jewish state. The newly declared state was not defeated.
Go to 1967, and Israel wins a defensive war against its neighbouring Arab states (including the state that had control of the West Bank - Jordan). Israel wins the war, is not annihilated, and gains territory.
Basically, you think that a state that has gained territory in defensive wars, wars in which it's enemies have tried to wipe it off the map, should just give back the land it gained?
Out of interest, why didn't the Jordanians let the Palestinians establish a state in the West Bank between 48 and 67?
[deleted] t1_jab1ps7 wrote
[removed]
try_another8 t1_ja8bj0c wrote
"Hey, we tried to genocide you, but we lost. It's only fair if we get to keep everything and suffer no consequences"
[deleted] t1_ja5l7i1 wrote
[removed]
spicytunaonigiri t1_ja5s13v wrote
Israel doesn’t randomly seize or bulldoze Palestinian homes to build new settlements. It razes homes that are built illegally (ie, without a permit) in “Area C,” the mutually agreed to Israeli controlled section of the West Bank, and homes of terrorists. Israel only establishes new settlements in Area C, the borders of which were already agreed to in Oslo 30 years ago. But I agree Israel should have just clearly defined its borders in 1967 after the Palestinians refused to negotiate by annexing what it needed for its security and withdrawing from the remainder.
mrfenderscornerstore t1_ja5upoa wrote
Yeah, except the agreed upon exchange of area c never happened and Israel continues nip at the heels of the Palestinians who live there by restricting their water, not allowing development, blocking trash removal, transplanting Israeli citizens into ever-expanding developments, building walls inside the 1967 border, and on and on. But they’re a democracy (/s), so the US allows it.
[deleted] t1_ja672el wrote
[removed]
spicytunaonigiri t1_ja5wgem wrote
My comment was responding to a specific insinuation that Israel randomly seizes Palestinian homes whenever it wants to build settlements. It should not be read in any broader context than that.
mrfenderscornerstore t1_ja5xzzx wrote
When you mention Oslo, it absolutely needs context. And for what it’s worth, settlements in the West Bank don’t happen without bulldozing homes and displacing families that have lived in those homes for generations.
spicytunaonigiri t1_ja63jum wrote
Not true. While some settlements are on demolished Palestinian structures that were built illegally, the vast majority of settlement homes are new constructions on previously unoccupied land
mrfenderscornerstore t1_ja6d647 wrote
Wow. Not worth discussing anymore. The propaganda is clearly effective.
[deleted] t1_ja6ia0s wrote
[removed]
burningphoenix77888 t1_ja6pyr7 wrote
The settlements are illegal. They are de facto annexation.
Excusing the settlements is supporting genocide.
spicytunaonigiri t1_ja6td0k wrote
This is not germane to the discussion though. I was correcting a fact, not stating an opinion on whether I agree with the settlements.
MeatsimPD t1_ja856uw wrote
> Israel only establishes new settlements in Area C
-
that's not true https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esh_Kodesh
-
if Israel was following the intent of the Oslo Accords (which creates the area A, B, C system) they wouldn't be building new settlements AT ALL.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/12/oslo-israel-reneged-colonial-palestine
Don't forget that right wing extremists (the same kind who run the government in Israel now) assassinated the Israeli PM who signed the Oslo Accords https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Yitzhak_Rabin
Right wing Israelis never had any intent to follow the Oslo Accords
spicytunaonigiri t1_ja88zzv wrote
Israel did not establish Esh Kodesh. It was founded by a small group of pariahs acting in violation of Israeli law. But granted they are protected by the Israeli army and you could say Israel implicitly approves it by not dismantling it. Which is a fair argument.
The Oslo Accords do not flatly ban new settlements. They envisioned the transfer of Area C to the Palestinians over time. Which started in 2005 when several West Bank settlements were uprooted and a couple of years later when Olmert offered the Palestinians 100% of the West Bank with land swaps. Circumstances in Gaza caused Israel to reverse course on unilateral uprooting of settlements without a peace deal.
MeatsimPD t1_ja8bbs7 wrote
> The Oslo Accords do not flatly ban new settlements. They envisioned the transfer of Area C to the Palestinians over time.
Which obviously would be made much harder if not outright impossible (as we've seen today) with new settlements being constructed there. You cannot honestly tell me Israel was following the intent of the Agreement when it allowed tens of thousands of its own citizens to build settlements outside its sovereign borders and in land it had agreed would be transferred to another sovereign government
>Circumstances in Gaza caused Israel to reverse course on unilateral uprooting of settlements without a peace deal.
What circumstances justify settling tens of thousands of your own citizens outside of your sovereign territory against international law? And don't say security reasons because by God if they were that worried about security they wouldn't be settling there in the first place.
No the intent is clearly to settle permanently in the the West Bank and to fight whatever fight needs to be fought to stay there
spicytunaonigiri t1_ja8dej8 wrote
Israel will never uproot the major West Bank settlements. The deal would be 100% of the land area of the West Bank with land swaps to make up for the settlements. They’re too engrained. But I agree it’s terrible policy to create new settlements.
Israel uprooted 100% of its Gaza settlements in 2005 (and at the same time uprooted several WB settlements) and was rewarded with Hamas. If Gaza had become a democracy, it’s logical to presume settlements would have continued to be uprooted in the WB. But Gaza became a terror state and since the WB is much closer to Tel Aviv than Gaza, here we are.
MeatsimPD t1_ja8ig9h wrote
> The deal would be 100% of the land area of the West Bank with land swaps to make up for the settlements.
Think for a moment about the practically of what you are asking: where is all this land going to come from ? Surely not where anyone is already living, otherwise Israel would have to displace the people there. That means it's going to be land that no one can live on or wants to live on.
Now think for a moment about why the settlers, most of whom have been there less than 50 years and some far less, are "too engrained" to be moved than people who have lived there for centuries?
I'd like a direct answer to both these questions please
>Israel uprooted 100% of its Gaza settlements in 2005 (and at the same time uprooted several WB settlements) and was rewarded with Hamas. If Gaza had become a democracy, it’s logical to presume settlements would have continued to be uprooted in the WB. But Gaza became a terror state and since the WB is much closer to Tel Aviv than Gaza, here we are.
You act as if nothing else happened since 2005. Israel and Egypt have actively blockades Gaza since 2005, people are not allowed to leave and are even shot if they approach the fence too closely. Think about that? Doesn't that sound more like a prison than anything else? You're forced to remain in this area and if you try to leave or even get too close to the border you're shot.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip
Is it any wonder that people who are forcibly cut off from the rest of the world turned to violence? Honestly what did Israel expect to happen? For 2 million people to just sit quietly in a fenced off 140 square mile piece of land, doing nothing with their lives, never allowed to leave, always dependent on the graces of Israel and Egypt to decide whether or not food or medical supplies are allowed to be shipped in?
spicytunaonigiri t1_ja8nfbd wrote
The land swaps are a very small fraction. Israel offered 94% of the WB in 2008. The land swaps are not to trick the Palestinians into taking worse land. It’s symbolic to show Israel wants to offer 100% of the land that comprises the WB.
The settlers don’t have to move because the Arabs started a war and lost. That’s a consequence of war. Countries are permitted to occupy and lannex land taken in defensive wars and necessary for self defense. And since the WB was illegally occupied by Jordan pre-1967 Israel’s case is all the stronger. The civilian victims have the aggressor to blame, not the responder.
The permanent blockade started in 2007 after Hamas was elected. Israel didn’t unilaterally withdraw from Gaza because it wanted to create a state it had to police. That’s totally illogical because withdrawing from the land made Israel far more vulnerable to attacks. The plan was to wind down control of the border; Israel initially opened its land border with Gaza to encouraged trade. It was making the way for an independent Palestinian state with which to cooperate. And it was doing the same in the West Bank. It was only after terrorist attacks at the land border that it was closed.
MeatsimPD t1_ja8qdtw wrote
> The settlers don’t have to move because the Arabs started a war and lost. That’s a consequence of war.
That's bullshit and absolutely not how international law governs the resolution of conflicts.
>Countries are permitted to occupy and lannex land taken in defensive wars and necessary for self defense.
Absolutely 100% positively false. Prove me wrong and cite the international law that allows this
>The permanent blockade started in 2007 after Hamas was elected.
Also absolutely false. Here's the French Foreign minister in 2005 saying Gaza was at risk of becoming an "open-air prison" https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-196496/
That's two years before the takeover by Hamas https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaza_(2007) after Farah lost the 2006 elections
>The civilian victims have the aggressor to blame, not the responder
My dude. Forcibly occupying and annexing territory of another sovereign state IS AN ACT OF AGGRESSION. https://www.coalitionfortheicc.org/explore/icc-crimes/crime-aggression
spicytunaonigiri t1_ja8u20y wrote
Scholars disagree on when annexation is permissible. I would imagine you would side with the scholars against it and I would side with the scholars who support it. But it’s vague enough that you (and I) should avoid using absolute language
FYI, Israel has not annexed the WB other than East Jerusalem. It’s not even clear that it’s occupied since it’s not being occupied from any other nation. But certainly nations are permitted to occupy (if not annex) land held after a defensive war. I believe Israel should have annexed a buffer zone it deemed necessary for its defense in 1967 after the Arabs refused to negotiate and withdrawn from the rest. But hindsight is 20/20
MeatsimPD t1_ja8viit wrote
> Scholars disagree on when annexation is permissible. I would imagine you would side with the scholars against it and I would side with the scholars who support it.
Well okay but this isn't about what "scholars" think its about the law says. And you haven't actually showed me any scholar or law that supports your position so lets not pretend you're not full of shit.
>FYI, Israel has not annexed the WB other than East Jerusalem.
No but it has every intention to do so, and meanwhile its continued occupation and settling of citizens is clearly illegal.
>It’s not even clear that it’s occupied since it’s not being occupied from any other nation.
This isn't the 1600s, there's no "free real estate" that just "doesn't belong to another nation" that anyone can settle in. Under this logic a state like Jordan, across the river, could send its own citizens into the territory to settle. Is that what you're saying? Just any country could go to the West Bank and claim territory.
>But certainly nations are permitted to occupy (if not annex) land held after a defensive war.
Cite a source.
spicytunaonigiri t1_ja8x5x8 wrote
Scholars disagree on what the law says. I don't normally like to block quote but since you requested:
"The ILC (International Law Commission) repeatedly recognized that not all territorial changes in war are illegitimate. Not all annexations were bad... All agreed that post-war frontier adjustments were justified to help protect the victim of aggression. There was broad consensus territorial change was only impermissible in a war of “aggression.” Thus the final document provided that
states have a duty “to refrain from recognizing any territorial acquisition by another State acting in violation” of the U.N. Charter or other international law rules. But Israel’s use of force in 1967 was defensive... and thus explicitly lawful under the Charter. Thus there is no obligation to refrain from recognizing" it.https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO06/20180717/108563/HHRG-115-GO06-Wstate-KontorovichE-20180717.pdf
>No but it has every intention to do so
Israel has no serious intention of annexing the WB because if it did it would make Jews a minority in Israel.
>Is that what you're saying? Just any country could go to the West Bank and claim territory.
No. There's a difference between acquisition of land as the aggressor and defensively. Jordan acquired the land as the aggressor. Israel acquired it defensively. Typically occupied land that is not needed defensively is to be returned to the host country. In the WB, there is no host country. That's why some prefer to use the term "disputed land" rather than "occupied land." It's not being occupied from any other country. And which is also why the normal laws of occupation don't necessarily apply.
MeatsimPD t1_ja8xuo3 wrote
Thanks for providing a source, I actually appreciate it. Not sure if this guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Kontorovich is the best legal mind on the subject but at least its a source. I mean he's been involved in drafting laws for state legislatures that make it illegal to boycott Israel, yikes.
Dr_Phag t1_ja8j5mk wrote
And you were downvoted for saying this. Multiple posts discussing and criticizing Israeli policy regarding settlements, but you are downvoted for describing Hamas taking over Gaza and how that changed Israel’s approach.
It really does say a lot.
[deleted] t1_ja5t6tg wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ja61f2v wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_ja9sg0x wrote
[removed]
MarqFJA87 t1_ja5fte0 wrote
Netanyahu and other officials who didn't take part I'm the discussiond already denounced the agreement and said there would be no pause to the settlement construction. It's in the article.
SET_SCE_TO_AUX t1_ja4vinx wrote
I'm not holding my breath. It would be nice, though, you're right.
[deleted] t1_ja58vv2 wrote
[removed]
torpedoguy t1_ja7l9bv wrote
Can't; Israel doesn't consider shooting Palestinians to be violence in the first place.
[deleted] t1_ja4l6e0 wrote
So is Israel shutting down settlements? Is Palestine ending financial support of the families of terrorists? I like the words but they seem to be empty
victorfiction t1_ja4mi3u wrote
It’s such a shit show. Only thing that will fix this is good paying jobs and investment in the region so people care more about their futures than some bs blood feud.
[deleted] t1_ja4mp8d wrote
Israel has the jobs and investments and that hasn't stopped them from wanting to execute their version of manifest destiny, and I don't think anyone will be investing in Palestine knowing that whatever they build will be bombed eventually
magellan315 t1_ja5x9yc wrote
Israel has faced repeated wars instigated by the Arab nations as well as terrorist attacks funded by those same nations. After the 1967 War Israel made an offer to return land in exchange for peace. The Arab response was 9 Arab nations met in Khartoum and declared that there would be no peace.
[deleted] t1_ja5xh4u wrote
How does any of that force them to build illegal settlements in the sovereign land of another country
Ed_Durr t1_ja8jv1o wrote
If you lose an aggressive war, be prepared to lose some of your sovereign land.
[deleted] t1_jaakb46 wrote
That's certainly one narrative you could push.
JoeShmoAfro t1_ja7nrt0 wrote
Are you talking about Jordan?
Jordan controlled the West Bank between 48 and 67. So it's Jordan who you must be referring to.
[deleted] t1_jaak8p5 wrote
[removed]
MeatsimPD t1_ja85pmm wrote
> After the 1967 War Israel made an offer to return land in exchange for peace. The Arab response was 9 Arab nations met in Khartoum and declared that there would be no peace.
You keep posting this as if nothing has changed in the last 56 years.
magellan315 t1_ja8qmcw wrote
Very little has changed in 56 years. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and Syria continue to fund terrorists in a proxy war against Israel. The PLO reneged on both the Dayton and Oslo Accords. After turning over Gaza and the West Bank to the Palestinians, the Palestinians engaged in suicide bombings which led Israel to build a border wall. Palestinian school text books teach children that Jews are subhuman and should be killed.
MeatsimPD t1_ja8r3vk wrote
> After turning over Gaza and the West Bank to the Palestinians
When was the West Bank ever turned over to the Palestinians. I'm getting the clear sign you'll just sat whatever random bullshit you can if it sounds good in the moment
>Palestinian school text books teach children that Jews are subhuman and should be killed.
Man sounds like good reason not to build settlements outside of your country's sovereign borders and surrounded by Palestinians.
What's the justification for those settlements again? What's the justification for violating international law and annexing territory by force and settling your citizens outside of your sovereign borders
magellan315 t1_ja8rkr6 wrote
>Man sounds like good reason not to build settlements outside of your country's sovereign borders and surrounded by Palestinians.
Sounds like a good reason not to trust the Palestinians, especially after the failure of the Oslo and Dayton Accords.
MeatsimPD t1_ja8s4yx wrote
Again,
If you don't trust them why are you building settlements outside your state's sovereign borders, surrounded by them, and in violation of international law.
>What's the justification for those settlements again? What's the justification for violating international law and annexing territory by force and settling your citizens outside of your sovereign borders
Your lack of response is so telling, its like part of you knows there is no justification but you want Israel to have that land for some perverse reason
magellan315 t1_ja8spi5 wrote
Territory C,.
MeatsimPD t1_ja8t12p wrote
>Territory C,.
I think its clear you've given up on attempting to make an argument for Israeli's behavior after its been shown to be inconsistent bullshit.
Just say how you really feel, I'm guessing something like "Arabs and Palestinians attacked Israel and Israel has every right to do whatever it wants in the West Bank regardless what the people living there before their occupation want"
Just say it
magellan315 t1_ja8ty6d wrote
Israel faces constant terrorist attacks they are making sure that all of its citizens are safe. I think you're making excuses for the Palestinians inconsistent bullshit and those of its Arab allies who fund terrorism.
MeatsimPD t1_ja8us2j wrote
> Israel faces constant terrorist attacks they are making sure that all of its citizens are safe.
If they wanted to keep them safe, why are they allowing and encouraging them to settle outside Israeli's sovereign borders, beyond the security wall, and in very vulnerable locations?
>I think you're making excuses for the Palestinians inconsistent bullshit and those of its Arab allies who fund terrorism.
Oh the Palestinian authority government is an absolute disaster for the Palestinian people, and the funding of terrorism isn't helpful for anyone and certainly won't get Israel to withdraw from its illegally occupied territory.
Israel cannot be defeated militarily and its pointless and counter productive to try. Palestinians would be better served by following examples like Gandhi or Mandela in winning justice.
magellan315 t1_ja8xuhx wrote
If any Palestinian tried to emulate Gandhi, Mandela, or Martin Luther King, Jr they would be dead in 30 days at the hands of their own people who have been believe that the only solution is the destruction of Israel. The same goes for Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.
MeatsimPD t1_ja8y7dz wrote
It is unfortunate that too many people on both sides believe the only way to resolve this is to destroy and kill the other
magellan315 t1_ja91t6q wrote
It is a problem that the Palestinians and their Arab supporters feel that destroying Israel in spite of land for peace deals and the Oslo and Dayton Accords.
waiv t1_ja5zm64 wrote
It's silly trying to portray Israel as a poor victim when they have dished as much as they have received, the 1956 and 1967 wars were started by Israel, plenty of incursions against Gaza and the West Bank before 1967, including blowing up whole towns and attacking the Jordanian army when the Jordanian King was on peace talks with Israel.
magellan315 t1_ja7zn3v wrote
The 1967 War was due to the fact that multiple Arab countries were massing soldiers, air planes, and tanks near the Israeli border in battle formations, should they have waited to be attacked first? The peace talks through the U.N. failed and allowed the Arabs to stall for time.
Then of course there is the 1973, 6 day war, where the Arabs attacked on the most sacred day of the Jewish religion.
waiv t1_ja8ifux wrote
Well, according to the American and Israeli intelligence back then Nasser wasn't going to take offensive action against Israel. There were no UN peace talks, there were going to be peace talks in Washington but the IDF attacked one day before the Egyptian envoy arrived.
magellan315 t1_ja8n9n6 wrote
Nasser mobilized the Egyptian military, ordered U.N. Peacekeepers out of the Egypt, and closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships. The closing of the Straits of Tiran was declared by President Lyndon Johnson to be "If a single act of folly was more responsible for this explosion than any other, it was the arbitrary and dangerous announced decision that the Straits of Tiran would be closed."
waiv t1_ja8v4se wrote
Yeah, same peacekeepers who offered to be relocated on the Israel side of the border but were refused, if the Israeli government was really worried about Nasser attacking, why didn't they allow them to take new positions?
Meh, they were worse causus belli before and cooler heads prevailed, for instance the IDF invaded Jordan, destroyed a jordanian town and attacked their army in 1966 and that didn't led to war.
It's not like the blockade of a port that was barely used back then required an urgent action without resorting to diplomacy.
Anyway, seems silly to blame the Arab countries for all the wars when clearly Israel started at least half of them.
magellan315 t1_ja8wh29 wrote
U.N. Peacekeepers are lightly armed and would have done nothing to stop the Egyptian military which was already massing on the border. In 1956 Egypt blocked the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships. Egypt hadn't learned its lesson the last time.
Jordan had been a base of operations for the PLO who was engaging in terrorist attacks. The Israeli's sent a message to both parties about what would not be tolerated.
waiv t1_ja8yc67 wrote
If by message you meant "war crime" and act of war, sure.
In the end Israel went Pearl Harbour against Egypt and then lied claiming they were attacked first, and since that didn't stick they started the narrative of "preemptive war".
magellan315 t1_ja91eq8 wrote
The Arabs were led by their noses by the Russians who claimed Israel massing their military to attack the Arabs. The Arabs failed to do due diligence and double check. Unlike Pearl Harbor America was not preparing for war against Japan. The Arabs were in battle formations because they were going to attack. Should the Israeli's have waited for an impending attack.
waiv t1_jacbfon wrote
So Egypt moved to the border not because they intended to attack Israel but because they thought Israel was going to attack Syria? Thanks for explaining, even less reasons to justify the Israeli attack.
Were they even in "battle formations"? They had been stationed there for three weeks doing nothing when Israel attacked treacherously.
magellan315 t1_jacv60w wrote
Egypt failed to verify the information they had and yes the Arab troops were in battle formation. Are you saying Israel should have waited to be attacked by three large armies?
victorfiction t1_ja4n6pp wrote
Israel doing this alone ain’t enough. Needs to be a global effort — we all have an investment in seeing this region find a path forward. Religion is such a toxic man-made creation.
starmartyr t1_ja4ynfb wrote
It isn't really a religious conflict. There are two groups fighting over the same piece of land. The groups are identified by different religions but they aren't fighting over religion. A similar conflict was The Troubles in Ireland. It was Catholics against Protestants but they weren't fighting about religion.
freshgeardude t1_ja98xoc wrote
To say religion plays no part in this conflict is hilarious. Palestinians, and Muslims in general, believe Palestine is holy Muslim land. It's exactly why jews can't pray at their holiest religious site (the temple mount). It's Palestinian rejection of a Jewish state on any of the land.
Jews can't live in areas controlled by the PA..
If this had no religious component, this conflict would have ended a while ago.
HelliswhereIwannabe t1_ja5cfut wrote
There are plenty of secular motivations behind the actions of both sides. Blaming religion just obfuscates that fact.
victorfiction t1_ja5kb9f wrote
The religion is further radicalizing the folks who are doing the violence, compounding the issue with a more aggressive and virulent ideology. It allows them to dehumanize MUCH easier than just some land dispute.
[deleted] t1_ja6rl3j wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ja4nd60 wrote
Who is going to invest in Palestine?
victorfiction t1_ja4nwc2 wrote
Same nations investing in Ukraine.
[deleted] t1_ja4o730 wrote
Ukraine was a stable country before the war with Russia and will be stable after the war with Russia is over. Palestine barely has a government.
magellan315 t1_ja5xn01 wrote
How about the oil rich Arab nations invest in the Palestinians first, up to know they only invest in Palestinian terrorists.
Ed_Durr t1_ja8jnoy wrote
That would be nice. Now what’s your plan to make them do it?
magellan315 t1_ja8pejz wrote
The Arab nations have always been selfish when it comes to the Palestinians. When jews fled or were forced out of Europe and the Middle East Israel took them in a gave the support and citizenship. The only thing the Arabs have done is use the Palestinians to fight a proxy war. Palestinians who live in Arab countries are treated like second class citizens and cannot obtain citizenship even if they are born in one.
If the Arab nations truly want to want to help the Palestinians they need to step up and help cleanup the mess they made. It should not be done by Western countries alone.
[deleted] t1_ja59e9x wrote
[removed]
MeatsimPD t1_ja4zryc wrote
> Only thing that will fix this is good paying jobs and investment in the region so people care more about their futures than some bs blood feud.
The conflict is about LAND who owns it and who governs it. Right now there are large overlapping claims of not only sovereignty between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (not to mention Israel doesn't recognize a state of Palestine) but personal property claims dating back decades. Families who fled their homes or were forcibly removed decades ago in what's now part of Israel wants the right to return to that land and live on it. Problem is that as far as Israel is concerned that land is owned by someone else.
Peace isn't happening because Israel and the Palestinian Authority cannot agree on what land is is part of what country (or again if Palestine even is a country). And this already complex problem is being made even harder by Israel settling it's citizens on land which is undeniably not part of Israel and that Palestinians want for a future land. But of course other Palestinian groups like Hamas in Gaza don't recognize Israel's border either.
But ultimately this is about LAND not religion or blood fueds or whatever it's about who owns what land
magellan315 t1_ja5y2cy wrote
Peace isn't occurring because of the Khartoum Conference in 1967 where 9 Arab nations declared there would be no peace with Israel and have been funding terrorists ever since.
burningphoenix77888 t1_ja6q7mz wrote
Peace isn’t occurring because Israel has refused the PA’s offer for a 2SS on the pre1967 borders.
magellan315 t1_ja7x46r wrote
The 1949 borders are indefensible. At one point the border is only 9.5 miles to the ocean it would take very little to cut Israel in half and then be destroyed. In the lead up to the 1967 war Egypt, Jordan, and Syria were massing tanks, airplanes, and soldiers in battle formations. Should Israel have waited to be attacked. They captured land during a war, why should they give it up?
The PA has reneged on both the Oslo and Dayton Accords, they can't be trusted.
try_another8 t1_ja8ch4n wrote
Why should Israel give back land they got in a defensive war? Don't wanna lose land? don't start a war
[deleted] t1_jaalr0k wrote
[removed]
freshgeardude t1_ja99faf wrote
Pretending this conflict could easily be solved over a specific line isn't reasonable, especially when the other side can go back in time and find an equally valid reasoning... But.... Only one side has regretted they should have accepted the 1947 Partition plan.
And before then, it was the British mandate and ottoman control.
MeatsimPD t1_ja6bznr wrote
>Peace isn't occurring because of the Khartoum Conference in 1967 where 9 Arab nations declared there would be no peace
You're ignoring two facts 1) many of the states represented at this conference don't have the same governments.today they had 1967 and have subsequently signed peace treaties with Israel and 2) nothing you said says anything to do with that I said
Bonus third fact) annexing territory through conquest without the consent of the people living there is illegal under international law, and settling your citizens outside of your own territory is also illegal under international law
magellan315 t1_ja7y98x wrote
- Many of those states don't have the same leadership, but they still have the beliefs and politics.
- Which of those countries have signed treaties with Israel?
- During the War of Independence the Arabs captured land without permission, should they have returned it to Israel?
MeatsimPD t1_ja86pa0 wrote
> Which of those countries have signed treaties with Israel?
Egypt and Jordan. Why are you asking me questions about basic facts? You're tacitly admitting your opinion is uninformed if you don't know this.
>During the War of Independence the Arabs captured land without permission, should they have returned it to Israel?
I don't know what you're talking about. Israel has control of all territory it controlled at the start of the 1948 war
magellan315 t1_ja8jeri wrote
You made vague assertions about peace treaties. Anwar Sadat was killed by his own military for making peace with Israel. Jordan was weak and ineffective following their losses in 1967 and had to deal with the PLO in 1970, more commonly known as Black September. They also did not come to terms with Israel until 1994.
Meanwhile the major players; Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and several others continue to funding terrorists. Even to this day.
MeatsimPD t1_ja8l82b wrote
What does any of this have to do with the occupation of the West Bank? Israel's security situation is more secure than it has ever been. What further security justification is there for occupying the West Bank? What justification is there for settling Israelis citizens there?
For God's sake if they are so concerned about terrorism than why are they settling their citizens outside of their sovereign territory in the West Bank and the Golan Heights let's not forget that either
What about any of this changes the fact that annexation of territory through conquest is illegal as is settling your citizens outside of your borders in such land.
magellan315 t1_ja8nwca wrote
If territory by conquest is illegal, then why didn't the Arabs return the land they captured in the 1948 War of Independence? The only reason Israel's security is better than ever is because they have defeated the combined Arab armies in multiple wars.
MeatsimPD t1_ja8osre wrote
> If territory by conquest is illegal, then why didn't the Arabs return the land they captured in the 1948 War of Independence
Bro what land? Israel controls all the territory it held in 1948. What land do you want them to return?
>. What further security justification is there for occupying the West Bank? What justification is there for settling Israelis citizens there
You're not answering the question
magellan315 t1_ja8qro2 wrote
East Jerusalem.
MeatsimPD t1_ja8rv7p wrote
East Jerusalem was never part of the State of Israel post 1948 but has been de-facto annexed by Israel since 1967.
>What further security justification is there for occupying the West Bank? What justification is there for settling Israelis citizens there
Still aren't answering the question, come on dude give me your justification for the conquest of the West Bank
magellan315 t1_ja8td4t wrote
Jerusalem has always been the capital of Israel East and West. Furthermore when Jordan controlled East Jerusalem they denied Israeli citizens access to the Western Wall. Any tourists who entered from Israel could not reenter Israel.
As for the West Bank, when the Palestinians love their children as much as they hate Israel then they will have control over the West Bank.
MeatsimPD t1_ja8twsl wrote
> Jerusalem has always been the capital of Israel East and West.
I mean... I understand that people feel that way but its not the truth of the matter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Jerusalem
> Furthermore when Jordan controlled East Jerusalem they denied Israeli citizens access to the Western Wall. Any tourists who entered from Israel could not reenter Israel.
Which was obviously wrong but in no way justifies the occupation of the West Bank, settling Israeli Citizens in the West Bank, or annexing territory through force.
>As for the West Bank, when the Palestinians love their children as much as they hate Israel then they will have control over the West Bank.
magellan315 t1_ja8vcdi wrote
The U.N. is a joke when it comes to Israel, remember when the Arabs and their allies passed a resolution equating Zionism with Racism. There is a joke about how the U.N. closes on Christian and Muslim holidays and on Jewish they pass a resolution against Israel.
As for your using a GIF instead of using your words, you just proved you are just another basement dwellers. The Palestinians dance in the streets after Jews are killed and make the terrorists hero's. When they love their children this practice will end, instead they teach them to kill
MeatsimPD t1_ja8wna7 wrote
You've reached the point where you're basically saying international law doesn't matter, is that correct?
>The Palestinians dance in the streets after Jews are killed and make the terrorists hero's. When they love their children this practice will end, instead they teach them to kill
Lets not pretend that Israeli settlers and soldiers aren't guilty of killing innocent people, that they don't celebrate terrorists, or that they don't literally dance in the street when hearing about violence
There's no moral high-ground when it comes to violence here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settler_violence
>What further security justification is there for occupying the West Bank? What justification is there for settling Israelis citizens there
Still aren't answering my question. Its such a simple question too, why are you so afraid to give a direct answer?
magellan315 t1_ja8x2v7 wrote
It is used as a base of for terrorists.
Your nothing more than an Arab apologist.
MeatsimPD t1_ja8y3gf wrote
> It is used as a base of for terrorists.
Then why settle your citizens there?!?!?
>Your nothing more than an Arab apologist.
An Arab apologist? Not a terrorist apologist? I think the mask is slipping off.
Do you think Arabs should be allowed to live in Israel or the West Bank?
magellan315 t1_ja9292e wrote
Arabs do live in Israel and full rights and citizenship, they make up 20% of the population. You can be an Arab apologist and a terrorist supporter, which you are.
MeatsimPD t1_ja92mob wrote
But you seem to have a problem with terrorists AND Arabs.
And you still are not answering my question.
>What further security justification is there for occupying the West Bank? What justification is there for settling Israelis citizens there
magellan315 t1_ja9xxxe wrote
I have a problem with terrorists and the Arab nations/individuals who provide aid and comfort to terrorists. I have a problem with the Arab governments who have repeatedly attacked Israel and have pledged they will not recognize or make peace with Israel. It was the Arabs who created the situation that has been continued to this day.
As far as the West Bank goes I could care less about what the Palestinians want. They reneged on the Oslo and Dayton Accords and have engaged in terrorism instead of trying to create a nation of their own with the land they have.
[deleted] t1_ja52i0e wrote
[removed]
Megaloman71 t1_ja52vb5 wrote
If the general public in Israel stopped kowtowing to the religious radicals it would be a good start.
[deleted] t1_ja59ndd wrote
[removed]
BrownMan65 t1_ja51kz7 wrote
Only thing that will fix it is actually allowing the Palestinians that are being held like prisoners throughout the area to return to their homes. Throwing jobs at people who are already being treated worse than animals by Israelis is not going to fix any issue.
GenShermansGhost t1_ja6d3wc wrote
> allowing the Palestinians that are being held like prisoners throughout the area to return to their homes
That ship sailed when the Arab world ethnically cleansed their own Jewish populations. At this point, demanding the right-of-return is demanding the enforcement of a double-standard where the Arabs are allowed to remove Jews from their lands, but not vice-versa.
[deleted] t1_ja5xtk1 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ja60gtb wrote
[removed]
GenShermansGhost t1_ja6db38 wrote
> , as determined by the UN itself.
The Arab world holds outsized influence among the UN, and the body has displayed gross bias against Israel in the past; it has issued more resolutions condemning Israel than against all other countries combined, despite there being far worse countries out there than Israel.
> On top of that, there is a very clear disparity in the deaths that are caused by Palestinians and those caused by Israelis.
There's a reason for that and that's a pisspoor argument.
> Palestinians are completely in the right to fight back and if there are Israeli civilian deaths then that should be considered caused by the Israeli government.
You're either a lunatic or bloodthirsty.
> They have pushed Palestinians to react this way.
Pretty sure Israel didn't push the Arabs to attack them in 1948 with the stated goal of "pushing the Jews into the sea"
> Israel does not get to take everything from these people and then cry when they fight back and kill them.
These people are getting a far lesser version what their ancestors attempted to do to the Israelis.
VercettiEstates t1_ja6aup2 wrote
Which Ukrainian soldiers are killing Russian civilians on purpose?
burningphoenix77888 t1_ja6q3if wrote
It isn’t terrorism to fight occupation. It is called guerrilla warfare. They are partisans. Not “terrorists”
So yes. It does include them.
[deleted] t1_ja6ymmc wrote
[removed]
chyko9 t1_ja6r7a2 wrote
Palestinian militants view all of Israel as “the occupation”. They believe all Israeli land is “occupied territory” that must be “liberated”. Do you understand this and not care, or do you not understand that their goal is not merely the “liberation” of the West Bank, but the destruction of Israel itself?
[deleted] t1_ja6s2pf wrote
[removed]
chyko9 t1_ja6tqi7 wrote
Palestine doesn’t have a “leader”. It’s “leadership” is made up of shifting coalitions of militant groups, with varying degrees of fundamentalism and political objectives of varying maximalism. Because of this, Abbas’ opinion isn’t actually indicative of if the militant groups that constitute the Palestinian leadership want themselves.
So, we have to turn to actions, because they speak louder than words. Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, which is the only data point we have with which to predict what would happen if Israel withdrew from the West Bank as well.
What ended up happening? Israel got rocket attacks and cross border raids in response, precisely because the militant groups that truly constitute the Palestinian leadership don’t actually share Abbas’ surface-level statement that the 1967 borders are legitimate. Abbas probably doesn’t even believe it himself.
The truth is that Israel could withdraw to the 1967 or even the 1948 borders and the vast majority of Palestinian militants would only view it as “partial success”.
[deleted] t1_ja59wjs wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ja5sf3y wrote
[removed]
burningphoenix77888 t1_ja6q0pv wrote
Palestine will end financial support to families of partisans when Israel stops persecuting families of partisans
[deleted] t1_ja6rd1n wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ja6s0wj wrote
[removed]
chyko9 t1_ja6tuws wrote
Schools with rockets and other weapons in them? I call it the predictable reaction of a nation state that has its population come under unguided missile barrages.
If Israel were the United States and Gaza was Tijuana, Tijuana would be a parking lot right now.
[deleted] t1_ja7o0er wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ja7wc2m wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ja6qggl wrote
If it was just partisans and not people who bomb bus stops then I wouldn't criticize them on the subject nearly as heavily. I don't care what's going on, deliberate terrorist attacks on civilians is never justifiable and no sane, responsible government would ever condone those activities.
JoeShmoAfro t1_ja7nyiv wrote
Old mate buriningpheonix is a terrorist sympathiser, who supports the murder of innocent civilians.
[deleted] t1_ja6qxc2 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ja6r6fd wrote
[removed]
chyko9 t1_ja6ss6t wrote
That user believes all of Israel is “occupied land” that must be “liberated”, and that all Israelis are “colonizers”. In other words, that user does not view them as civilians, but as legitimate targets.
[deleted] t1_ja6t8jj wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ja6t0x6 wrote
Look, I can see that position as arguable. I don't agree, but there's at least half a leg to stand on. But even IF I grant for the sake of argument that everyone who isn't a descendant of residents who were present at the Ottoman census are occupiers or whatever, that STILL would not justify terrorism against civilians.
[deleted] t1_ja6syrh wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ja6t8jw wrote
[removed]
blitznB t1_ja6s3n4 wrote
In a real politick sense the Palestinian people in both the West Bank under the PA and the Gaza Strip under Hamas has constantly refused to acknowledge and deal with the fact that they have lost multiple wars and uprisings against Israel . This has been happening since the 1940’s.
It’s sucks to be a defeated country and people but after agreeing to surrender terms and ceasing hostilities, it allows a country to rebuild and develop. The constant state a resistance has been dragged out for too long. Even other Arab countries are over it and establishing official bilateral relations with Israel.
The sad thing is that now a days the voting populace of Israel is just fed up with the supposed peace process. Specifically young voters are turning away from it and supporting far right politicians cause all they see from the Palestinians is constant rhetoric about destroying Israel.
It’s a sad state of affairs, that I honestly don’t see being resolved ever due to a variety of reasons.
Dr_Phag t1_ja8m0eh wrote
Palestine wasn’t a defeated country, but was part of the Ottoman empire and later the British empire. That region, and many other countries, were carved out in the same period.
Israel has been rejected every step of the way by multiple countries and every country that later signed peace treaties with Israel have been perfectly peaceful with Israel. Iran, Syria and Palestine have been the most not peaceful with Israel and all show terrible human rights. That fact is possibly the most important detail…if Palestinians want peace, they need to first clean up their human right issues.
[deleted] t1_ja5wp15 wrote
[removed]
burningphoenix77888 t1_ja6q8yj wrote
Yeah. They have an interest in fighting against the apartheid regime committing genocide against them
bloomboy06 t1_ja5eovp wrote
We promise to throw one less brick. (Still has a pile of millions of bricks)
[deleted] t1_jaam06g wrote
[removed]
Mythosaurus t1_ja7lj7i wrote
> Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who also has responsibilities over Jewish settlements in the West Bank, quickly said he would not abide by any such agreement.
> "I have no idea what they spoke about or not in Jordan," Smotrich wrote on Twitter. "But one thing I do know: there will not be a freeze on the building and development in settlements, not even for one day (it is under my authority)."
Well then this effort is doomed to fail. The far-right faction that desperately wants to complete the original settler colonial project is going to sabotage this peace deal at all costs.
Israel’s conservatives have allowed the far-right a lot of influence within their coalition in exchange for holding power. And now it’s playing out exactly like everyone else knew it would.
Ed_Durr t1_ja8j982 wrote
It’s ironic, the center and center-right parties refuse to work with Netanyahu, so Likud forms a coalition with the far-right parties to govern.
Redditthedog t1_ja9drv2 wrote
They could have joined and acted as a counterweight to give Bibi options other then listen to the far right or collapse the government. Instead they refused to join
RangeWilson t1_ja5ictl wrote
Cool, because dozens of similar pledges have helped tremendously in the past.
Oh wait...
MGD109 t1_ja5nmg5 wrote
Maybe not. But shockingly if you give up trying, we won't know if any in the future might have done.
magellan315 t1_ja5ypfk wrote
The Palestinians reneged on both the Oslo and Dayton Accords. In 1967 nine Arab nations met in Khartoum after the 1967 War and declared there would never be peace with Israel. Israel is not the problem.
[deleted] t1_ja715rz wrote
[removed]
Blazerer t1_ja8792h wrote
Sure the Palestinians are all to blame.
Luckily Israel, being a supposedly democratic nation state, has not targeted local and foreign media with kill squads, they never summarily executed hundreds of civilians for no other reason than being in the way of an illegal building project, and certainly never killed Palestinians for objecting to being beaten to death by Israeli settlers.
So it's all Palestinians that is to blame, Israel did nothing to purposely create more violence for political points, like targeting schools with the most blatanly made up excuses.
magellan315 t1_ja8hgd9 wrote
Prove it. Its easy to claim Israel has targeted local and foreign media and I think that's all you have is a statement without proof. As for the Palestinians, lets talk about all of the Israelis and Jews who have been wounded or killed by terrorists in Israel and overseas.
The Arabs and the Palestinians chose war and terror starting in 1948, Israel is defending itself.
Dr_Phag t1_ja8ma8q wrote
This is just all false.
Blazerer t1_ja8ts7d wrote
Except, to just name one example, that it was widely documented that Israel target a building specifically containing The Associated Press and Al'Jazeera.. This is barely a year ago and somehow you've forgotten?
But you're just going to claim the building was actually filled with Hamas, despite Israel never providing any actual proof, they just pinky promise that Hamas was totally in the building. Just like they are in all those schools, daycare centers, school busses, grocery stores etc.
Alioshia t1_ja4oz2x wrote
Right, and whos taking bets on who will or wont follow through?
[deleted] t1_ja4dr7t wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ja4yp8c wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ja51dd6 wrote
[removed]
MalcolmLinair t1_ja5wk3y wrote
Anyone else thinking of the Spy Vs Spy picture where they're shaking hands and holding bombs and things behind their backs?
[deleted] t1_ja628ms wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ja64juc wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ja6dypt wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ja73qmk wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ja823pj wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ja8erlu wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ja9eivf wrote
[removed]
Rebelgecko t1_ja9w62b wrote
Good idea, shame they hadn't thought of trying it before now.
2muchwork2littleplay t1_ja7octy wrote
It's been over 70 fucking years, it's time to establish Israel's borders and MAKE THEM STAY INSIDE OF THEM like every other nation on earth
(offer not valid in Russia/Ukraine atm)
pegothejerk t1_ja4e76r wrote
For real this time, you guys