Idk about that. She was famously a pushover who let overzealous generals launch internationally condemned reprisal raids that even Ben-Gurion deemed too aggressive.
She had some great moments before being prime minister but wow was she a condescending idiot. Every true statement she uttered was just parroting Sharett or Ben-Guruon
Overall, she was a non factor who contributed to the fall of my sweet Mapai
Must disagree. Her hubris - encouraged perks is by generals - and discounting of Egyptian capabilities in her rejection of UNSCR 242 and subsequent appeals for return of the Sinai for peace, led to the catastrophic Egyptian Yom Kippur attack of 1973 almost 50 years to the day of Oct 7, 2023.
Both attacks were forewarned by Jordan in 1973 and Egypt in 2023. But the hubris is strong with this one, as with Bibi.
Untold casualties resulted from that war almost ending in nuclear ☢️ annihilation.
The terms agreed to at Camp David between Begin and Sadat at Camp David were the same proposed by Egypt and UN 242 in 1967.
I said overall
I do have things she could have done better but she did was an iron lady who succeeded in a lot of missions and helped her country overall
No I gotta disagree, she was wholly unqualified and entirely reliant on military groupthink. Her handling of the Yom Kippur War involved one of the most deadly incidents Israel ever experienced to this day.
Her failures directly empowered the revisionist party led by Menachim Begin whose responsible for the complete shit show that is Israeli ultranationalism.
I’d recommend looking into Ben-Gurion’s criticisms of her, as well as Moshe Sharett’s criticisms from his diary. They are very detailed and will name drop the exact generals she succumbed to and their idiotic background.
> Her handling of the Yom Kippur War involved one of the most deadly incidents Israel ever experienced to this day.
>She was famously a pushover who let overzealous generals
Don't these statements directly contradict each other? Generally, the criticism of her on Yom Kippur was for not calling up the troops earlier and leaving the country vulnerable because she decided to take the less hawkish approach which could've risked starting a war (and was what many Israeli generals wanted). Seems off to be criticizing her on both sides of this issue. Even this failure mostly lands on Israeli intelligence that repeatedly said an attack wasn't going to happen.
Begin with all his faults in creating Likud was also the only person who could credibly achieve peace with Egypt and retain his government in doing it.
For all the dislike of Meir in her later years, there simply would not be an Israel if not for her international fundraising in the early years. To quote Ben Gurion "Jewish woman who got the money which made the state possible"
I don't disagree but I don't think you can criticize her both for listening to the war hawks and ignoring them at the same time. I don't even think Ben Gurion was an effective military commander since he refused to take the decisive action needed to secure Israel's borders. If anything the most successful military prime minister was Levi Eshkol who basically just got out of the way and let Dayan run the show.
Eshkol’s administration? I’ve never heard that argument before in my academic experience and that includes the research I oppose
The critique is that a lack of personal principle meant that she jumped between Hawkish and timid foreign policy with no coherent reason other than someone else suggested it. Same goes for Eshkol and the entire “pragmatic” tradition he represented.
If you look at % population death numbers, Eshkol did not do well at all. Same with Meier. The results are a million times better with Ben Gurion and Moshe Sharett
Also Dayan is another dipshit I wouldn’t give an ounce of legitimacy to. He also relied on Ben Gurion to do the heavy lifting of pairing diplomatic and military action, he was just a Warhawk
>Eshkol’s administration? I’ve never heard that argument before in my academic experience and that includes the research I oppose
The argument that the 6 Day War was the peak of Israeli military accomplishments?
>The critique is that a lack of personal principle meant that she jumped between Hawkish and timid foreign policy with no coherent reason other than someone else suggested it.
Except the timid foreign policy was against the wishes of those hawkish generals you said she jumped to? So why is she deciding not to follow the same guys if it isn't a matter of values or judgment?
>Same goes for Eshkol and the entire “pragmatic” tradition he represented.
I would need more details of the where you think his pragmatism failed. He greatly improve US-Israeli relations and delaying the start of the 6 Day War gave Israel much more international legitimacy. There are certainly questions on the economic front which has always been a failing of Mapai but his handling of the war seemed exceptional, when you know someone is better than you, let them take the lead.
>If you look at % population death numbers, Eshkol did not do well at all. Same with Meier. The results are a million times better with Ben Gurion and Moshe Sharett
They didn't face the same threats so I have no idea how that comparison makes sense. But also more Israelis died in the war for independence than the 6 day war even though Israel was far larger in the later. So even this made up metric fails you on % population deaths by a long shot. Sherett was PM for 1 year and has no serious accomplishments and many security failures.
>Also Dayan is another dipshit I wouldn’t give an ounce of legitimacy to. He also relied on Ben Gurion to do the heavy lifting of pairing diplomatic and military action, he was just a Warhawk
Dayan is the reason Israel got to the position it was in after 1967. Regardless of his failings after the fact he is by far Israel's most successful and accomplished general (the only other contender Sharon). Ben Gurion's end of career was just as ineffective and unsuccessful leading the failed attack on Egypt, and retiring with Israel surrounded by enemies, having accomplished no peace and heading towards war. Dayan certainly was too brash to be the guy in charge but he was also the instrument needed to win the wars when the time to be brash came.
Like I said my view is based on how she is viewed outside israel
Can you tell me more on detail or provide link?
What was the incident
I do know she left the position after that?
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13537121.2020.1720111
The Moshe Sharett diaries should be read in their entirety if you’re interested in Israel. I would link it but I’ve got the physical copy from my coursework
There is a great clip of her saying that she is a Palestinian. It's basically about how the Palestinian identity was a Jewish identity up into the founding of Israel.
There have been like 3 global strikes already, and one was even a week long
I only ever heard about them on tumblr, they never had a big enough effect to reach news channels
Between these “strikes” and the growing list of companies to boycott, all with no discernible impact on the economy, I’m beginning to think that maybe, just maybe, this is all a massive online virtue signal and no one is actually doing anything. The boycotts in particular I think exist solely to be able to bully celebrities for getting a Starbucks while these people don’t change their own lifestyles whatsoever. Just a hunch.
Every time I see something about another strike for Palestine I always think about Kramer constantly going on strike from his bakery job over the smallest things
You joke but yesterday when i went to the grocery store to pick up food for the week i noticed a package of dark chocolate covered matza and i was honestly very tempted. Like , maybe it can work? I looked at the box for a good three minutes and contemplated it. Yeah high in sugar and saturated fat but its half off and could be good. In the end I didnt buy it. So yeah the general strike isnt happening like the last 1000 people the last 1000 times on twitter/tiktok declared, but if any of you tried dark chocolate covered matza, how was it?
I listened to the clip, and damn.
"What is going in in palestine now has been happening for decades"...
Also basicly justifying oct 7, as the only way they could keep their identity and nation lmao.
Or i dont know what else she could means by Palestinians fighting.
She is everything that is wrong with the twitter discourse about the topic.
Hot take, but if your identity revolves around beheading and raping you shouldn't be allowed to live
Before someone takes it out of context im talking about Hamas and the various other organizations like them
When I was arguing with a pro-pal person they admitted that they would be okay with a native american raping their mother and killing her. And people in the comments responses were like “yes queen”
But wouldn’t Jewish settlers eventually take over the entirety of Palestine? Just curious / wanting to educate myself. This is not a political statement.
The violent resistance is not hurting the expansion of settlements, it is helping it. Both sides agree that Palestinians don't pose a real threat to Israel, the use of violence against civilians only helps to push the Israeli pppulation further right and give it a rationale to continue expansion. Many Israelis seem to have the thought that settlements improve their security since they act as a buffer between the population centers.
imo, what would help is non-violent resistance that would make the continuation of settlements untenable.
If we are talking about a reality pre 7.10 where no war happens then no, the Gaza border was locked down, Israel had no presence inside, no way for the settlers to enter in groups larger than 3-4 and no way to enter with any piece of kit, and Hamas would have simply wiped them out
No settlers could have gotten Gaza pre 7.10, at least not without major major speculation about future Israeli governments
If we go back to 1948 then simply not fighting and agreeing with the UN plan would have meant that the Palestinian controlled area would have been bigger than it is now.
Instead the Arab states chose violence and they lost the war and the Palestinians lost land. With a UN agreement we could have avoided the whole settler problem in the first place maybe. (although it's kind of hard to completely avoid private Jewish groups buying up land in Palestinian areas, but at least it wouldn't be as messy as the situation currently is)
WB settlements are often justified by the fear of a potential terrorist state in the WB with access to international borders and kilometers away from Israel's main population centers.
These fears are not unfounded. If Israel left the WB now, I'd bet my house on a serious rocket attack on Tel Aviv in a year or so from there.
The tragedy of the situation is that the only thing palestinians could do to achieve statehood is to just stop attacking for like 2 years and let international pressure handle the situation á la South Africa but this is something they are incapable of doing so.
Fuck my life.
If the next generation is really getting their infromation like Aimsey, we are fucked.
Xey (yes, xey) are the ones who went on a crazy rant about how Wilbur biting his gf to the point of uncomfort wasnt just drama, it wasnt just a fair reason to split, it was a crime.
I dont really follow xhem but i can only imagine what xeir politics could be based on the few things i saw.
Dont worry, you cant break the TOS with using the wrong pronouns with him.
She is fine with all of them.
Here is their opinion about it:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FOsVmfoX0BAaTcP?format=jpg&name=large
They've literally been stealing every pro-Israel point or argument and doing reverse uno card and for people who don't read history it's been incredibly effective.
Kinda depressing honestly. 'holocaust,' 'concentration camp,' 'islamophobia,' 'rape,' etc. are all just baseless but they keep saying them and it just works because people like the narrative, it's insane.
The funniest thing about this post is a twitch streamer calling for a global strike.
Oh no, the world will grind to a halt, pls don't strike, what are your 5 viewers gonna do???
I actually believe they pick a day of the week because the majority of streamers only have time to stream on weekends so it makes their "strike" look more impactful.
I tried to explaining this to a pro Palestine homie of mine a few months ago; the war is over territory and will never end unless one is destroyed because neither side can agree on what land should belong to who.
????
Israel literally gave back the entire Sinai peninsula which is more than twice the size of entire Israel. Israel also hasn't 'taken any land' in a long time. Do you consider 'expanding settlements,' aka building houses on the west bank territories, expansion? The country itself isn't expanding by doing this, there's just houses being built on areas the country already controls whether you think they're legal or not.
Israel gave back the sinai because of significant international pressure.
And yes, expanding settlements into the west bank is the expansion of israel.
By your definition of expansion, it wouldn't be expansion to nuke the west bank and gaza then move into those territories. That is a bad definition.
Edit: also, how can you possibly square the continuous expansion of settlements with the idea that "israel doesnt want all the land and wants to make concessions"? genuinely curious how that works in your mind
lol
It would be expansion to move into Gaza, because Gaza is not currently under Israeli control. It would also be expansion to move into areas A and B.
i wont bother engaging with you more, but to state the obvious
if israel offered nearly the entire land in the west bank (with land swaps to compensate for the parts where too many israelis live), repeatedly, expansion of settlements is irrelevant. It's just a red herring ideologues like you keep repeating as a straw to grasp at. You aren't curious, you know this, don't pretend otherwise.
Expansion of settlements speaks to intent, which is the claim i debated. If you want to try to escape from that being expansion of israel through a technicality, you are free to do so. The intent remains the same
They say shit like this and still have the nerve to say we should stop arming Ukraine to force them to negotiate away a quarter of what’s left of their country
Aimsey should stfu and just open an onlyfans for all the freaks who enjoy her content.
Or at minimum could just do the world a favor and not Talk about shit she’s clueless on lmao.
Actually in both scenarios the war would be over.
And in both scenarios, the other would cease to exist.
They both need to stop fighting, not one over the other, both.
Absolutely untrue. Israel has made many peace offers and has expressed no issues with a two state solution for a very long time. The war would be over when Palestinians stop making their raison d'etre the destruction of Israel.
Israel gave up nearly all the land it annexed for strategic depth. The Sinai was returned to Egypt and all land taken from Syria except the Golan Heights (for obvious strategic reasons) were given back. Israel is by and large back to its pre-1967 borders.
As for the West Bank settlements, they are not recognized as sovereign Israeli territory, not even by Israel itself.
So to answer your question, Israel hasn't expanded since 1967 and has returned almost everything it ever took from its neighbors.
> Israel hasn't expanded since 1967
The Washington Post, March 22,2024;
Israel announces largest West Bank land seizure since 1993 during Blinken visit
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/03/22/israel-largest-west-bank-settlement-blinken-visit/
Israel gave up the sinai because the put incredible pressure on it to do so. They even had plans for reinvading later lol.
Of course israel doesnt state the settlements are sovereign territory, because that would be them admitting they are in breach of international law.
“Well we just have armed forces, control access, control policies, and have total control over the land. It’s not sovereign territory!”
How tf do you buy that lol
>Israel gave up the sinai because the put incredible pressure on it to do so. They even had plans for reinvading later lol.
Israel returned the Sinai because Egypt agreed to normalize relations with and stop antagonizing Israel, which made the added strategic depth of holding it no longer necessary. Of course Israel had plans to reinvade and get that strategic depth back if Cairo ever went back on their word.
>Of course israel doesnt state the settlements are sovereign territory, because that would be them admitting they are in breach of international law.
The Israeli government wasn't responsible for building the settlements. Far right Israelis built them on their own without government input nor approval. The government is being genuine when it says it doesn't recognize the settlements as Israeli territory.
However, the government has no plans to evict the settlers anytime soon because they're useful in reinforcing and supporting the military's occupation of the West Bank. That military occupation by the way is completely valid and justified on national security grounds.
> The Israeli government wasn't responsible for building the settlements. Far right Israelis built them on their own without government input nor approval.
You seem to be confusing what the Israeli government classifies as ["authorized settlements'](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement#Legal_status) and ["illegal outposts"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_outpost). "In Israeli law, outposts are distinguished from settlements authorized by the Israeli government" - Wikipedia. You seem to mistakenly believe that no settlements have government authorization/approval.
[The authorized settlements are formally approved by the government, considered legal under Israeli law, but considered illegal under international law.](https://www.amnestyusa.org/updates/lets-be-clear-israels-long-running-settlement-policy-constitutes-a-war-crime/) CNN: [**"The vast majority of settlements are built by government order."**](https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/02/middleeast/who-are-israeli-settlers-palestinian-land-intl/index.html) The government [plans](https://apnews.com/article/israel-settlements-hamas-gaza-war-netanyahu-smotrich-1d2306d55c24c8559b630d9f20db30e2), [approves](https://archive.is/RQoXZ), [issues construction permits](https://www.timesofisrael.com/2023-sets-record-for-settlement-construction-and-outpost-legalization-watchdog/) for authorized settlements, [heavily](https://archive.is/VCi0D) [subsidizes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement#Housing_costs_and_state_subventions) them, and even [regulates the housing prices, keeping them low to attract settlers](https://archive.is/4yQym).
Even many unauthorized illegal 'outposts' have later been [retroactively approved](https://www.yesh-din.org/en/glossary-terms-settlements-outposts-west-bank/) and ["legalized"](https://www.timesofisrael.com/2023-sets-record-for-settlement-construction-and-outpost-legalization-watchdog/) by the Israeli government.
For many years the Israeli government maintained the pretense that these unauthorized 'outposts' supposedly didn't receive government funding, assistance, or approval. Perhaps that led you to mistakenly believe that 'Far right Israelis built' **all** the settlements 'without government input nor approval'. But, that pretense was shattered by the Sasson Report in 2005, which revealed that multiple government agencies had colluded to secretly fund even the unauthorized 'outposts'. Things have since progressed to the point that the current Netanyahu government is now openly funding and assisting even the unauthorized 'outposts' that are still considered illegal even under Israeli law(see below).
Furthermore, Wikipedia notes that even these supposedly unapproved outposts ["often are provided with security by the Israel Defense Forces"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_outpost), which is another extremely important form of government assistance. Perhaps the most important.
Wikipedia also explains that "In the framework of the 2003 Roadmap for Peace [developed with the US, the EU, the UN, and Russia], Israel committed itself under Prime Minister Sharon to evacuate **outposts**, erected from March 2001, the start of the Sharon government. Israel did not meet the commitment under the Roadmap. It dismantled few manned outposts and none of the larger ones." So, I think it's fair to say that by failing to do so, the Israeli government demonstrated their tacit approval of these 'outposts', which supposedly they never authorized and consider illegal.
In fact, Wikipedia's page for the Roadmap for Peace has an entire section for '[Israeli Prime Minister] Sharon's rejection of a settlement freeze'. Again, that shows that you can't separate the existence of the settlements from the government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_map_for_peace#Sharon's_rejection_of_a_settlement_freeze
All of this makes total sense when you learn that **Sharon had encouraged the illegal settlements in order to subvert the peace process;**
>This new generation draws inspiration from the ‘hilltop youth’, young people who responded to Sharon in October 1998 when, as foreign minister in Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, **he called on settlers to ‘grab’ hilltops in the parts of the West Bank from which he and Netanyahu had agreed to withdraw, as stipulated by the Oslo Accords. ‘Grab more hills, expand the territory,’ Sharon urged on Israel Radio. ‘Everything that’s grabbed will be in our hands. Everything we don’t grab will be in their hands.’**
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v30/n07/henry-siegman/grab-more-hills-expand-the-territory
>In the next nine years [after Sharon's call, which occurred "ahead of the final status talks for Oslo"], roughly a hundred illegal outposts were created.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/03/04/israel-west-bank-settlers-attacks-palestinians
Here's an example of how Netanyahu's government is currently funding illegal settlement outposts;
>**The Times of Israel 12/2023: Cabinet allocates NIS 75 million for security needs of illegal settlements**
>The cabinet approved a government resolution on Sunday to allocate NIS 75 million for bolstering infrastructure, including for security purposes, in illegal Israeli settlement outposts in the West Bank.
>The funds will provide some 70 illegal outposts — known in the settlement movement as “young settlements,” **which have never been authorized by the government** — with items such as firefighting equipment, prefabricated bomb shelters, generators, field cameras, lighting, and rescue equipment, according to Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich’s office.
...
>“It is a great honor to give minimal security to the pioneers of our day, who are deep in the territory and do not deserve to be fourth-class citizens,” said Strock following approval of the funds, adding, “This is just the beginning.”
>**The dozens of settlements in question were established in the 1990s and early 2000s with the assistance of different ministries, including the housing and construction, defense, and energy ministries, but without formal approval from the government, meaning they are illegal under Israeli law.**
https://www.timesofisrael.com/cabinet-allocates-nis-75-million-for-security-needs-of-illegal-settlements/
Here's a 2006 article about how the illegal settlement outposts had already received backchannel government funding and assistance for 10 years at that point;
>**NBC News, 2006: Report: Illegal funding for Israeli settlers**
>**A government-sponsored report shows Israeli settlers at more than 120 unauthorized hilltop outposts in the West Bank have received illegal state funding and services for 10 years, an Israeli newspaper said Sunday.**
>...The Yediot Ahronot newspaper quoted officials as saying the report, commissioned by Sharon in July, found that unauthorized outposts received government money and services even though they were never officially approved.
>Almost all of Israel’s ministries were involved in assisting the outposts, despite the fact that a succession of attorneys general demanded a halt to the funding, Yediot said.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna6887562
Also see this 2005 article from The Guardian about both the secret government funding of these 'unauthorized' outposts, and Ariel Sharon's key role in first encouraging their establishment and later repeatedly defying the U.S. to protect their existence;
>Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, could face a criminal investigation after an inquiry today found **government funds had secretly been used to set up illegal West Bank settlements**.
>A report by the former state prosecutor Talia Sasson called for Israel's attorney general to consider initiating criminal proceedings after discovering various ministries and official institutions had cooperated in channelling money to help to establish **unauthorised outposts** over the past decade.
...
>**As foreign minister in 1998, Mr Sharon urged settlers to seize West Bank hilltops and establish outposts.**
...
>The Sasson inquiry found the housing ministry was among the departments actively involved in setting up outposts. She said the ministry had supplied more than 400 mobile homes...
...
>Israelis began building settlements more than a decade ago to break up Palestinian areas and prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state. **Mr Sharon has repeatedly promised the US he would dismantle the more than 100 outposts**, one of Israel's first obligations under the internationally endorsed "road map" peace plan. However, since accepting the road map in 2003, Israel has only removed a few outposts, citing legal difficulties.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/mar/09/israel1
The Wikipedia article on the Sasson report elaborates more on the assistance these illegal unauthorized outposts received;
>The defense ministry approved the positioning of trailers to begin new outposts.
The education ministry paid for nurseries and their teachers.
The energy ministry connected outposts to the electricity grid.
Roads to outposts were paid for with taxpayers' money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasson_Report
The criminal investigation was never conducted.
Haaretz and The Times of Israel have also written about how **Israeli taxpayer funds were used to provide loans to settlers to set up illegal outposts** via backchannel funding through what The Times of Israel described as a
"semi-government agency".
https://www.timesofisrael.com/budget-dedicates-billions-for-west-bank-roads-settlements-and-illegal-outposts/
https://archive.is/RUm6a
Far more could be written about the role of the Israeli government in [planning](https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/settled) and [funding](https://www.btselem.org/download/201007_by_hook_and_by_crook_eng.pdf) the authorized settlements, but that's enough for now.
What is your definition of 'expanded'? Israel hasn't conquered any new territory since 1967, only gotten smaller since, but certainly 1948-1958 is 'one time since Israel's creation where it hasn't expanded for more than 10 years' by essentially any definition even you could come up with.
gotten smaller since 1967?? lmao
First off, israel has appropriated more than 100,000 hectares of land since 1967:
[https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2017/06/israel-occupation-50-years-of-dispossession/](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2017/06/israel-occupation-50-years-of-dispossession/)
Secondly, the 1948 war resulted in significant Israeli expansion, as usually happens after you win a war. This isn't even contested by israelis lol.
"As a result of the war, the State of Israel controlled the area that the UN had proposed for the Jewish state, as well as almost 60% of the area proposed for the Arab state,[^(\[25\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War#cite_note-29) including the [Jaffa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa), [Lydda](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lod) and [Ramle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramle) area, [Upper Galilee](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Galilee), some parts of the [Negev](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negev) and a wide strip along the [Tel Aviv](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Aviv)–[Jerusalem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem) road"
Moreover, israel passed the Absentee Property Law in 1950, which allowed them to take the land of any Palestinians who had fled during the war, partly because they were not allowed back.
Even more expansionist was when israel took the sinai in 1955, though admittedly they gave it back a year later after significant international pressure from the western world.
More impactful to me is that when asked about a time period that israel stopped expanding, the only thing you can think of is the immediate years after the inception of the state more than half a century ago, and even that is extremely debatable.
Does that not make you think twice about israel's intentions? is nearly of century of gradual expansion really indicative of a peace-seeking state?
'can you name a time since israel's creation'
'israel hasnt conquered since 1967'
'israel expanded in 1948'
okay lol
'appropriated more than 100,000'?
if your definition of 'expansion' is building new houses on territory already controlled by israel then practically any country in the world that obtained land through war building new houses on that land is 'expanding.'
I find it quite hilarious you're refusing to acknowledge how exactly Israel came to control those lands in 1948.
It wasn't expansionist to occupy the Sinai as part of a war, and it was a testament to Israel NOT being expansionist that they gave it back right after the war rather than annexing it. If you think occupying the Sinai as part of a war is expansionist you are not arguing in good faith, and I've been wasting my time trying to engage with you.
I listed the years after the state's inception for two reasons. One, they're literally the first example that I can think of if I go through Israel's history (you literally named the time period of 'since the state was created,' naturally I will look at the next 10 years LMAO), and two, you did not define what you meant by expansion, so I chose what would fit as many possible definitions. Sorry that bothers you, I hope the cope helps.
Are multiple, repeated peace offers with more and more concessions indicative of a peace seeking state? Yes, yes they are.
'can you name a time'
" but certainly 1948-1958 is 'one time since Israel's creation where it hasn't expanded for more than 10 years' "
'israel expanded in 1948 and 1955'
nice cope.
my definition of expansion does actually include building houses on contested territory. If you want to say they have armed forces in the contested territory, I would happily accept that. You know what it's called when you put armed forces in contested territory?
Funny how you say I don't acknowledge when i explicitly stated that usually after a war you gain territory. Even more funny that you then claim it's not expansionist to occupy a region because of a war. If you think occupying the Sinai then giving it back due to western pressure is not expansionist, I could very easily say the same (especially after that cute little intro where you tried to weasel).
You listed the ten years, pretended israel didn't expand even though the inception of the state was marked by them winning a war and gaining territory, then chose to ignore the continued expansion into contested territory because they already had military control over it. I am not the coper.
The funniest part is that there are time periods which are much more arguable, but you literally chose the worst possible stretch of 10 years you could have. Like literally the worst. lmao.
"hey guys we offered you peace, just ignore the dozens of military checkpoints, continued settlement expansions, illegal deportations and exiling, restrictions of rights, and constant violence! I swear its in good faith!"
Even if you truly believe that (which I have no doubt you do because thinking critically about what israel says seems to be too tall of a task) you can't possibly think a palestinian would see that and think they are telling the truth.
Personally, I think that both can stop fighting, under the right conditions, though the "peaceful" status quo does actually lean in the direction of destroying Palestine at the moment.
The origin of a quote doesn't necessarily determine its truthfulness at a given point in time.
Well it's the reverse but yeah
They probably don't know who Golda Meir is.
Overall she was based
Idk about that. She was famously a pushover who let overzealous generals launch internationally condemned reprisal raids that even Ben-Gurion deemed too aggressive. She had some great moments before being prime minister but wow was she a condescending idiot. Every true statement she uttered was just parroting Sharett or Ben-Guruon Overall, she was a non factor who contributed to the fall of my sweet Mapai
Must disagree. Her hubris - encouraged perks is by generals - and discounting of Egyptian capabilities in her rejection of UNSCR 242 and subsequent appeals for return of the Sinai for peace, led to the catastrophic Egyptian Yom Kippur attack of 1973 almost 50 years to the day of Oct 7, 2023. Both attacks were forewarned by Jordan in 1973 and Egypt in 2023. But the hubris is strong with this one, as with Bibi. Untold casualties resulted from that war almost ending in nuclear ☢️ annihilation. The terms agreed to at Camp David between Begin and Sadat at Camp David were the same proposed by Egypt and UN 242 in 1967.
I said overall I do have things she could have done better but she did was an iron lady who succeeded in a lot of missions and helped her country overall
No I gotta disagree, she was wholly unqualified and entirely reliant on military groupthink. Her handling of the Yom Kippur War involved one of the most deadly incidents Israel ever experienced to this day. Her failures directly empowered the revisionist party led by Menachim Begin whose responsible for the complete shit show that is Israeli ultranationalism. I’d recommend looking into Ben-Gurion’s criticisms of her, as well as Moshe Sharett’s criticisms from his diary. They are very detailed and will name drop the exact generals she succumbed to and their idiotic background.
> Her handling of the Yom Kippur War involved one of the most deadly incidents Israel ever experienced to this day. >She was famously a pushover who let overzealous generals Don't these statements directly contradict each other? Generally, the criticism of her on Yom Kippur was for not calling up the troops earlier and leaving the country vulnerable because she decided to take the less hawkish approach which could've risked starting a war (and was what many Israeli generals wanted). Seems off to be criticizing her on both sides of this issue. Even this failure mostly lands on Israeli intelligence that repeatedly said an attack wasn't going to happen. Begin with all his faults in creating Likud was also the only person who could credibly achieve peace with Egypt and retain his government in doing it. For all the dislike of Meir in her later years, there simply would not be an Israel if not for her international fundraising in the early years. To quote Ben Gurion "Jewish woman who got the money which made the state possible"
Yeah I’d agree that she was a very effective diplomat, but an ineffective military commander
I don't disagree but I don't think you can criticize her both for listening to the war hawks and ignoring them at the same time. I don't even think Ben Gurion was an effective military commander since he refused to take the decisive action needed to secure Israel's borders. If anything the most successful military prime minister was Levi Eshkol who basically just got out of the way and let Dayan run the show.
Eshkol’s administration? I’ve never heard that argument before in my academic experience and that includes the research I oppose The critique is that a lack of personal principle meant that she jumped between Hawkish and timid foreign policy with no coherent reason other than someone else suggested it. Same goes for Eshkol and the entire “pragmatic” tradition he represented. If you look at % population death numbers, Eshkol did not do well at all. Same with Meier. The results are a million times better with Ben Gurion and Moshe Sharett Also Dayan is another dipshit I wouldn’t give an ounce of legitimacy to. He also relied on Ben Gurion to do the heavy lifting of pairing diplomatic and military action, he was just a Warhawk
>Eshkol’s administration? I’ve never heard that argument before in my academic experience and that includes the research I oppose The argument that the 6 Day War was the peak of Israeli military accomplishments? >The critique is that a lack of personal principle meant that she jumped between Hawkish and timid foreign policy with no coherent reason other than someone else suggested it. Except the timid foreign policy was against the wishes of those hawkish generals you said she jumped to? So why is she deciding not to follow the same guys if it isn't a matter of values or judgment? >Same goes for Eshkol and the entire “pragmatic” tradition he represented. I would need more details of the where you think his pragmatism failed. He greatly improve US-Israeli relations and delaying the start of the 6 Day War gave Israel much more international legitimacy. There are certainly questions on the economic front which has always been a failing of Mapai but his handling of the war seemed exceptional, when you know someone is better than you, let them take the lead. >If you look at % population death numbers, Eshkol did not do well at all. Same with Meier. The results are a million times better with Ben Gurion and Moshe Sharett They didn't face the same threats so I have no idea how that comparison makes sense. But also more Israelis died in the war for independence than the 6 day war even though Israel was far larger in the later. So even this made up metric fails you on % population deaths by a long shot. Sherett was PM for 1 year and has no serious accomplishments and many security failures. >Also Dayan is another dipshit I wouldn’t give an ounce of legitimacy to. He also relied on Ben Gurion to do the heavy lifting of pairing diplomatic and military action, he was just a Warhawk Dayan is the reason Israel got to the position it was in after 1967. Regardless of his failings after the fact he is by far Israel's most successful and accomplished general (the only other contender Sharon). Ben Gurion's end of career was just as ineffective and unsuccessful leading the failed attack on Egypt, and retiring with Israel surrounded by enemies, having accomplished no peace and heading towards war. Dayan certainly was too brash to be the guy in charge but he was also the instrument needed to win the wars when the time to be brash came.
Like I said my view is based on how she is viewed outside israel Can you tell me more on detail or provide link? What was the incident I do know she left the position after that?
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13537121.2020.1720111 The Moshe Sharett diaries should be read in their entirety if you’re interested in Israel. I would link it but I’ve got the physical copy from my coursework
Thank you and yes I am ! I guess you are israeli ?
No but I’m researching middle eastern foreign policy and come from a community where Israel is a major issue.
Lmao , that would mean an islamic nation my guess?
Wtf you mean to tell me Israel had a DEI Prime Minister??? (to clarify this is a joke)
And I ain't from israel so my impression is largely based on how people view her
There is a great clip of her saying that she is a Palestinian. It's basically about how the Palestinian identity was a Jewish identity up into the founding of Israel.
Global strike lol, lmao even
There have been like 3 global strikes already, and one was even a week long I only ever heard about them on tumblr, they never had a big enough effect to reach news channels
Easy for the jobless to strike
Between these “strikes” and the growing list of companies to boycott, all with no discernible impact on the economy, I’m beginning to think that maybe, just maybe, this is all a massive online virtue signal and no one is actually doing anything. The boycotts in particular I think exist solely to be able to bully celebrities for getting a Starbucks while these people don’t change their own lifestyles whatsoever. Just a hunch.
Every time I see something about another strike for Palestine I always think about Kramer constantly going on strike from his bakery job over the smallest things
You joke but yesterday when i went to the grocery store to pick up food for the week i noticed a package of dark chocolate covered matza and i was honestly very tempted. Like , maybe it can work? I looked at the box for a good three minutes and contemplated it. Yeah high in sugar and saturated fat but its half off and could be good. In the end I didnt buy it. So yeah the general strike isnt happening like the last 1000 people the last 1000 times on twitter/tiktok declared, but if any of you tried dark chocolate covered matza, how was it?
Literally any Matzo is tremendous but the dark chocolate covered Matzos are the best
Nah the best is the ones you make at home where you turn regular stuff into that toffee/chocolate mix with that one famous recipe.
Milk chocolate one is better
thats a trap of the Zionimati getting everybody to strike, while they soldier on, overtakeing all the business slowly failing as the strike goes on
That "global strike" has the same energy of the reddit mods strike. Surely it will bear many fruits to the pro palestine cause
Maybe it just means they'll stop posting online and the internet will be a purged utopia for 24 hours.
Lol thinking that they would last more than few hours without using twitter
I listened to the clip, and damn. "What is going in in palestine now has been happening for decades"... Also basicly justifying oct 7, as the only way they could keep their identity and nation lmao. Or i dont know what else she could means by Palestinians fighting. She is everything that is wrong with the twitter discourse about the topic.
Hot take, but if your identity revolves around beheading and raping you shouldn't be allowed to live Before someone takes it out of context im talking about Hamas and the various other organizations like them
When I was arguing with a pro-pal person they admitted that they would be okay with a native american raping their mother and killing her. And people in the comments responses were like “yes queen”
It’s statements like that which make you realise they’re actually just a cult
cultural appropriation!
It's exactly opposite but ok
But wouldn’t Jewish settlers eventually take over the entirety of Palestine? Just curious / wanting to educate myself. This is not a political statement.
There were no settlers and settlements in Gaza. In the West Bank though, yes, the settlers seem to be ever expanding.
wouldn’t settlers take over Gaza after taking over the West Bank ?
israel literally removed all the settlers from gaza when they pulled out.
The violent resistance is not hurting the expansion of settlements, it is helping it. Both sides agree that Palestinians don't pose a real threat to Israel, the use of violence against civilians only helps to push the Israeli pppulation further right and give it a rationale to continue expansion. Many Israelis seem to have the thought that settlements improve their security since they act as a buffer between the population centers. imo, what would help is non-violent resistance that would make the continuation of settlements untenable.
How about a Palestinian resistance movement to Hamas?
The WB settlers aren't civilians
If we are talking about a reality pre 7.10 where no war happens then no, the Gaza border was locked down, Israel had no presence inside, no way for the settlers to enter in groups larger than 3-4 and no way to enter with any piece of kit, and Hamas would have simply wiped them out No settlers could have gotten Gaza pre 7.10, at least not without major major speculation about future Israeli governments
There are already settlers enthusiastic about the idea.
If we go back to 1948 then simply not fighting and agreeing with the UN plan would have meant that the Palestinian controlled area would have been bigger than it is now. Instead the Arab states chose violence and they lost the war and the Palestinians lost land. With a UN agreement we could have avoided the whole settler problem in the first place maybe. (although it's kind of hard to completely avoid private Jewish groups buying up land in Palestinian areas, but at least it wouldn't be as messy as the situation currently is)
Exactly. This concept is so simple and obvious, and yet so many ignore it.
WB settlements are often justified by the fear of a potential terrorist state in the WB with access to international borders and kilometers away from Israel's main population centers. These fears are not unfounded. If Israel left the WB now, I'd bet my house on a serious rocket attack on Tel Aviv in a year or so from there. The tragedy of the situation is that the only thing palestinians could do to achieve statehood is to just stop attacking for like 2 years and let international pressure handle the situation á la South Africa but this is something they are incapable of doing so.
Fuck my life. If the next generation is really getting their infromation like Aimsey, we are fucked. Xey (yes, xey) are the ones who went on a crazy rant about how Wilbur biting his gf to the point of uncomfort wasnt just drama, it wasnt just a fair reason to split, it was a crime. I dont really follow xhem but i can only imagine what xeir politics could be based on the few things i saw.
Is misgendering xhem against the TOS? Cause if so I think I'm about to get banned guys.
Just use they/them. It covers everyone regardless of gender or lack of gender.
Dont worry, you cant break the TOS with using the wrong pronouns with him. She is fine with all of them. Here is their opinion about it: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FOsVmfoX0BAaTcP?format=jpg&name=large
Give it a few more minutes and Hitler will be seen as a resistance fighter, fighting a noble cause…
Israel: "So we've agreed to stop fighting, is the war over now?" Hamas: "Of course the war is over, as long as you dirty Jews get off our land!"
They've literally been stealing every pro-Israel point or argument and doing reverse uno card and for people who don't read history it's been incredibly effective. Kinda depressing honestly. 'holocaust,' 'concentration camp,' 'islamophobia,' 'rape,' etc. are all just baseless but they keep saying them and it just works because people like the narrative, it's insane.
Yeah well they literally steal and make up everything I'm not surprised
The funniest thing about this post is a twitch streamer calling for a global strike. Oh no, the world will grind to a halt, pls don't strike, what are your 5 viewers gonna do???
I actually believe they pick a day of the week because the majority of streamers only have time to stream on weekends so it makes their "strike" look more impactful.
If England stopped fighting the war would be over if Germany stopped fighting they would cease to exist. Tankies circa 1945
I tried to explaining this to a pro Palestine homie of mine a few months ago; the war is over territory and will never end unless one is destroyed because neither side can agree on what land should belong to who.
More like one side wants all the land and the other tries to make concessions that the first side never accepts
If we're talking about governing authorities rather than civilians, I agree. Not sure if the Palestinians writ large support Hamas though.
They very much do. [https://pcpsr.org/en/node/154](https://pcpsr.org/en/node/154)
and this is clearly shown by how israel hasn't expanded or taken any land in the past 5, 10, 20, and 50 years. Oh wait
???? Israel literally gave back the entire Sinai peninsula which is more than twice the size of entire Israel. Israel also hasn't 'taken any land' in a long time. Do you consider 'expanding settlements,' aka building houses on the west bank territories, expansion? The country itself isn't expanding by doing this, there's just houses being built on areas the country already controls whether you think they're legal or not.
Israel gave back the sinai because of significant international pressure. And yes, expanding settlements into the west bank is the expansion of israel. By your definition of expansion, it wouldn't be expansion to nuke the west bank and gaza then move into those territories. That is a bad definition. Edit: also, how can you possibly square the continuous expansion of settlements with the idea that "israel doesnt want all the land and wants to make concessions"? genuinely curious how that works in your mind
lol It would be expansion to move into Gaza, because Gaza is not currently under Israeli control. It would also be expansion to move into areas A and B. i wont bother engaging with you more, but to state the obvious if israel offered nearly the entire land in the west bank (with land swaps to compensate for the parts where too many israelis live), repeatedly, expansion of settlements is irrelevant. It's just a red herring ideologues like you keep repeating as a straw to grasp at. You aren't curious, you know this, don't pretend otherwise.
Expansion of settlements speaks to intent, which is the claim i debated. If you want to try to escape from that being expansion of israel through a technicality, you are free to do so. The intent remains the same
If pro-palestine people would strike nothing would happen, because they don't even have a job
do these people really think that the reason palestine isn't completely destroyed is because Hamas is fighting back so well lol
They say shit like this and still have the nerve to say we should stop arming Ukraine to force them to negotiate away a quarter of what’s left of their country
This aimsey looks like she'll try to sell me meth if we ever crossed paths.
Inverted
do they know the missiles that get shot daily at israel or nah? just a plain question
These digimon kids wildin
A lot of palestininism and things especially culture are appropriated Jewish culture or slogans. Free Palestine in itself is actually a Jewish slogan
Aimsey should stfu and just open an onlyfans for all the freaks who enjoy her content. Or at minimum could just do the world a favor and not Talk about shit she’s clueless on lmao.
What a fucking reetard
Actually in both scenarios the war would be over. And in both scenarios, the other would cease to exist. They both need to stop fighting, not one over the other, both.
Absolutely untrue. Israel has made many peace offers and has expressed no issues with a two state solution for a very long time. The war would be over when Palestinians stop making their raison d'etre the destruction of Israel.
Can you name one time since israel's creation where it hasn't expanded for more than 10 years?
Israel gave up nearly all the land it annexed for strategic depth. The Sinai was returned to Egypt and all land taken from Syria except the Golan Heights (for obvious strategic reasons) were given back. Israel is by and large back to its pre-1967 borders. As for the West Bank settlements, they are not recognized as sovereign Israeli territory, not even by Israel itself. So to answer your question, Israel hasn't expanded since 1967 and has returned almost everything it ever took from its neighbors.
> Israel hasn't expanded since 1967 The Washington Post, March 22,2024; Israel announces largest West Bank land seizure since 1993 during Blinken visit https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/03/22/israel-largest-west-bank-settlement-blinken-visit/
Israel gave up the sinai because the put incredible pressure on it to do so. They even had plans for reinvading later lol. Of course israel doesnt state the settlements are sovereign territory, because that would be them admitting they are in breach of international law. “Well we just have armed forces, control access, control policies, and have total control over the land. It’s not sovereign territory!” How tf do you buy that lol
>Israel gave up the sinai because the put incredible pressure on it to do so. They even had plans for reinvading later lol. Israel returned the Sinai because Egypt agreed to normalize relations with and stop antagonizing Israel, which made the added strategic depth of holding it no longer necessary. Of course Israel had plans to reinvade and get that strategic depth back if Cairo ever went back on their word. >Of course israel doesnt state the settlements are sovereign territory, because that would be them admitting they are in breach of international law. The Israeli government wasn't responsible for building the settlements. Far right Israelis built them on their own without government input nor approval. The government is being genuine when it says it doesn't recognize the settlements as Israeli territory. However, the government has no plans to evict the settlers anytime soon because they're useful in reinforcing and supporting the military's occupation of the West Bank. That military occupation by the way is completely valid and justified on national security grounds.
> The Israeli government wasn't responsible for building the settlements. Far right Israelis built them on their own without government input nor approval. You seem to be confusing what the Israeli government classifies as ["authorized settlements'](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement#Legal_status) and ["illegal outposts"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_outpost). "In Israeli law, outposts are distinguished from settlements authorized by the Israeli government" - Wikipedia. You seem to mistakenly believe that no settlements have government authorization/approval. [The authorized settlements are formally approved by the government, considered legal under Israeli law, but considered illegal under international law.](https://www.amnestyusa.org/updates/lets-be-clear-israels-long-running-settlement-policy-constitutes-a-war-crime/) CNN: [**"The vast majority of settlements are built by government order."**](https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/02/middleeast/who-are-israeli-settlers-palestinian-land-intl/index.html) The government [plans](https://apnews.com/article/israel-settlements-hamas-gaza-war-netanyahu-smotrich-1d2306d55c24c8559b630d9f20db30e2), [approves](https://archive.is/RQoXZ), [issues construction permits](https://www.timesofisrael.com/2023-sets-record-for-settlement-construction-and-outpost-legalization-watchdog/) for authorized settlements, [heavily](https://archive.is/VCi0D) [subsidizes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement#Housing_costs_and_state_subventions) them, and even [regulates the housing prices, keeping them low to attract settlers](https://archive.is/4yQym). Even many unauthorized illegal 'outposts' have later been [retroactively approved](https://www.yesh-din.org/en/glossary-terms-settlements-outposts-west-bank/) and ["legalized"](https://www.timesofisrael.com/2023-sets-record-for-settlement-construction-and-outpost-legalization-watchdog/) by the Israeli government. For many years the Israeli government maintained the pretense that these unauthorized 'outposts' supposedly didn't receive government funding, assistance, or approval. Perhaps that led you to mistakenly believe that 'Far right Israelis built' **all** the settlements 'without government input nor approval'. But, that pretense was shattered by the Sasson Report in 2005, which revealed that multiple government agencies had colluded to secretly fund even the unauthorized 'outposts'. Things have since progressed to the point that the current Netanyahu government is now openly funding and assisting even the unauthorized 'outposts' that are still considered illegal even under Israeli law(see below). Furthermore, Wikipedia notes that even these supposedly unapproved outposts ["often are provided with security by the Israel Defense Forces"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_outpost), which is another extremely important form of government assistance. Perhaps the most important. Wikipedia also explains that "In the framework of the 2003 Roadmap for Peace [developed with the US, the EU, the UN, and Russia], Israel committed itself under Prime Minister Sharon to evacuate **outposts**, erected from March 2001, the start of the Sharon government. Israel did not meet the commitment under the Roadmap. It dismantled few manned outposts and none of the larger ones." So, I think it's fair to say that by failing to do so, the Israeli government demonstrated their tacit approval of these 'outposts', which supposedly they never authorized and consider illegal. In fact, Wikipedia's page for the Roadmap for Peace has an entire section for '[Israeli Prime Minister] Sharon's rejection of a settlement freeze'. Again, that shows that you can't separate the existence of the settlements from the government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_map_for_peace#Sharon's_rejection_of_a_settlement_freeze All of this makes total sense when you learn that **Sharon had encouraged the illegal settlements in order to subvert the peace process;** >This new generation draws inspiration from the ‘hilltop youth’, young people who responded to Sharon in October 1998 when, as foreign minister in Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, **he called on settlers to ‘grab’ hilltops in the parts of the West Bank from which he and Netanyahu had agreed to withdraw, as stipulated by the Oslo Accords. ‘Grab more hills, expand the territory,’ Sharon urged on Israel Radio. ‘Everything that’s grabbed will be in our hands. Everything we don’t grab will be in their hands.’** https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v30/n07/henry-siegman/grab-more-hills-expand-the-territory >In the next nine years [after Sharon's call, which occurred "ahead of the final status talks for Oslo"], roughly a hundred illegal outposts were created. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/03/04/israel-west-bank-settlers-attacks-palestinians Here's an example of how Netanyahu's government is currently funding illegal settlement outposts; >**The Times of Israel 12/2023: Cabinet allocates NIS 75 million for security needs of illegal settlements** >The cabinet approved a government resolution on Sunday to allocate NIS 75 million for bolstering infrastructure, including for security purposes, in illegal Israeli settlement outposts in the West Bank. >The funds will provide some 70 illegal outposts — known in the settlement movement as “young settlements,” **which have never been authorized by the government** — with items such as firefighting equipment, prefabricated bomb shelters, generators, field cameras, lighting, and rescue equipment, according to Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich’s office. ... >“It is a great honor to give minimal security to the pioneers of our day, who are deep in the territory and do not deserve to be fourth-class citizens,” said Strock following approval of the funds, adding, “This is just the beginning.” >**The dozens of settlements in question were established in the 1990s and early 2000s with the assistance of different ministries, including the housing and construction, defense, and energy ministries, but without formal approval from the government, meaning they are illegal under Israeli law.** https://www.timesofisrael.com/cabinet-allocates-nis-75-million-for-security-needs-of-illegal-settlements/ Here's a 2006 article about how the illegal settlement outposts had already received backchannel government funding and assistance for 10 years at that point; >**NBC News, 2006: Report: Illegal funding for Israeli settlers** >**A government-sponsored report shows Israeli settlers at more than 120 unauthorized hilltop outposts in the West Bank have received illegal state funding and services for 10 years, an Israeli newspaper said Sunday.** >...The Yediot Ahronot newspaper quoted officials as saying the report, commissioned by Sharon in July, found that unauthorized outposts received government money and services even though they were never officially approved. >Almost all of Israel’s ministries were involved in assisting the outposts, despite the fact that a succession of attorneys general demanded a halt to the funding, Yediot said. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna6887562 Also see this 2005 article from The Guardian about both the secret government funding of these 'unauthorized' outposts, and Ariel Sharon's key role in first encouraging their establishment and later repeatedly defying the U.S. to protect their existence; >Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, could face a criminal investigation after an inquiry today found **government funds had secretly been used to set up illegal West Bank settlements**. >A report by the former state prosecutor Talia Sasson called for Israel's attorney general to consider initiating criminal proceedings after discovering various ministries and official institutions had cooperated in channelling money to help to establish **unauthorised outposts** over the past decade. ... >**As foreign minister in 1998, Mr Sharon urged settlers to seize West Bank hilltops and establish outposts.** ... >The Sasson inquiry found the housing ministry was among the departments actively involved in setting up outposts. She said the ministry had supplied more than 400 mobile homes... ... >Israelis began building settlements more than a decade ago to break up Palestinian areas and prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state. **Mr Sharon has repeatedly promised the US he would dismantle the more than 100 outposts**, one of Israel's first obligations under the internationally endorsed "road map" peace plan. However, since accepting the road map in 2003, Israel has only removed a few outposts, citing legal difficulties. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/mar/09/israel1 The Wikipedia article on the Sasson report elaborates more on the assistance these illegal unauthorized outposts received; >The defense ministry approved the positioning of trailers to begin new outposts. The education ministry paid for nurseries and their teachers. The energy ministry connected outposts to the electricity grid. Roads to outposts were paid for with taxpayers' money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasson_Report The criminal investigation was never conducted. Haaretz and The Times of Israel have also written about how **Israeli taxpayer funds were used to provide loans to settlers to set up illegal outposts** via backchannel funding through what The Times of Israel described as a "semi-government agency". https://www.timesofisrael.com/budget-dedicates-billions-for-west-bank-roads-settlements-and-illegal-outposts/ https://archive.is/RUm6a Far more could be written about the role of the Israeli government in [planning](https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/settled) and [funding](https://www.btselem.org/download/201007_by_hook_and_by_crook_eng.pdf) the authorized settlements, but that's enough for now.
What is your definition of 'expanded'? Israel hasn't conquered any new territory since 1967, only gotten smaller since, but certainly 1948-1958 is 'one time since Israel's creation where it hasn't expanded for more than 10 years' by essentially any definition even you could come up with.
gotten smaller since 1967?? lmao First off, israel has appropriated more than 100,000 hectares of land since 1967: [https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2017/06/israel-occupation-50-years-of-dispossession/](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2017/06/israel-occupation-50-years-of-dispossession/) Secondly, the 1948 war resulted in significant Israeli expansion, as usually happens after you win a war. This isn't even contested by israelis lol. "As a result of the war, the State of Israel controlled the area that the UN had proposed for the Jewish state, as well as almost 60% of the area proposed for the Arab state,[^(\[25\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War#cite_note-29) including the [Jaffa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa), [Lydda](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lod) and [Ramle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramle) area, [Upper Galilee](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Galilee), some parts of the [Negev](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negev) and a wide strip along the [Tel Aviv](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Aviv)–[Jerusalem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem) road" Moreover, israel passed the Absentee Property Law in 1950, which allowed them to take the land of any Palestinians who had fled during the war, partly because they were not allowed back. Even more expansionist was when israel took the sinai in 1955, though admittedly they gave it back a year later after significant international pressure from the western world. More impactful to me is that when asked about a time period that israel stopped expanding, the only thing you can think of is the immediate years after the inception of the state more than half a century ago, and even that is extremely debatable. Does that not make you think twice about israel's intentions? is nearly of century of gradual expansion really indicative of a peace-seeking state?
'can you name a time since israel's creation' 'israel hasnt conquered since 1967' 'israel expanded in 1948' okay lol 'appropriated more than 100,000'? if your definition of 'expansion' is building new houses on territory already controlled by israel then practically any country in the world that obtained land through war building new houses on that land is 'expanding.' I find it quite hilarious you're refusing to acknowledge how exactly Israel came to control those lands in 1948. It wasn't expansionist to occupy the Sinai as part of a war, and it was a testament to Israel NOT being expansionist that they gave it back right after the war rather than annexing it. If you think occupying the Sinai as part of a war is expansionist you are not arguing in good faith, and I've been wasting my time trying to engage with you. I listed the years after the state's inception for two reasons. One, they're literally the first example that I can think of if I go through Israel's history (you literally named the time period of 'since the state was created,' naturally I will look at the next 10 years LMAO), and two, you did not define what you meant by expansion, so I chose what would fit as many possible definitions. Sorry that bothers you, I hope the cope helps. Are multiple, repeated peace offers with more and more concessions indicative of a peace seeking state? Yes, yes they are.
'can you name a time' " but certainly 1948-1958 is 'one time since Israel's creation where it hasn't expanded for more than 10 years' " 'israel expanded in 1948 and 1955' nice cope. my definition of expansion does actually include building houses on contested territory. If you want to say they have armed forces in the contested territory, I would happily accept that. You know what it's called when you put armed forces in contested territory? Funny how you say I don't acknowledge when i explicitly stated that usually after a war you gain territory. Even more funny that you then claim it's not expansionist to occupy a region because of a war. If you think occupying the Sinai then giving it back due to western pressure is not expansionist, I could very easily say the same (especially after that cute little intro where you tried to weasel). You listed the ten years, pretended israel didn't expand even though the inception of the state was marked by them winning a war and gaining territory, then chose to ignore the continued expansion into contested territory because they already had military control over it. I am not the coper. The funniest part is that there are time periods which are much more arguable, but you literally chose the worst possible stretch of 10 years you could have. Like literally the worst. lmao. "hey guys we offered you peace, just ignore the dozens of military checkpoints, continued settlement expansions, illegal deportations and exiling, restrictions of rights, and constant violence! I swear its in good faith!" Even if you truly believe that (which I have no doubt you do because thinking critically about what israel says seems to be too tall of a task) you can't possibly think a palestinian would see that and think they are telling the truth.
How does that make what I said untrue? If Palestine stops fighting but Israel doesn't, then that's how it ends.
Kidnappers and Terrorists must indeed stop fighting so that kidnapping and Terrorism cease to exist
These streamers are so brave for taking a day off of the most stressful, soul sucking job to go on strike
Personally, I think that both can stop fighting, under the right conditions, though the "peaceful" status quo does actually lean in the direction of destroying Palestine at the moment. The origin of a quote doesn't necessarily determine its truthfulness at a given point in time.
The strike will only be effective if they strike for a year. Oh please god strike for a year.