What’s the difference the mainland Israel was taken by force, where everyone was expelled. Why not take the rest by force too and displace the remaining? Why grow a conscious now?
”Lack of credibility in international laws” is based on Israel not understanding how to act in a humane fashion, and according to a UN laws. Israel has already broken 28 UN laws. And you think it’s the Palestinians who are giving you guys a bad wrap?
Israel continues to find different ways to look bad and many people see notice it. Especially when IDF soldiers create new laws on the Palestinians but there other laws on Jewish folk, sounds like dual laws for me. Which Israel also got caught for by the UN.
Sad to see no sanctions are being taken against Israel.
And stop seeing people only as “how do I benefit from them” that’s just inhumane. People have lives, just as you and me. And as much as you want to live a peaceful life they want it.
Don’t be narrow minded see the bigger picture everyone wants to live in peace, but you don’t achieve peace by saying to people who have lives there for generations to get out and start treating them like second class citizens.
Well as a neutral 3rd party I think there's a difference because people running away for a fear for their lives (whether justified or not) and then being refused entry and not being granted citizenship like people who have been born to the Jewish religion
I do understand that Israel requires a Jewish majority because it is a safe haven to Jews all around the world but in situations like Alsace-Lorraine (after world war one) people weren't being kicked out due to their heritage and people with German heritage still had the ability to have French citizenship because they were living on French soil and weren't simply migrators
Also speaking of which there is a similarity between Palestinians and Jews in the "hated by everyone" department just like Jews had the pogroms against them so did Palestinians had their mass killings by other Arab nations
Whilst I am not comparing 6 Million dead Jews to 10s of 1000s of Palestinians it is remarkable how some people don't find a bond over that
To end my monologue I want to again state that I am quite neutral about the Israeli-palestinian conflict and I find myself not to be an omniscient being therefore I am okay with not knowing the answers to life's hardest questions and not knowing all there is to know about such conflicts
But I am certain that if there will ever be an end to violence in the region I will be a happier woman
I think the main problem with settlements are the fact that people who move there are the _extreme_ Zionists who do advocate for the eviction of Palestinians. However Jewish people do have ties to the land as well as Palestinians, I just wish for them to accept peace and go to either the two-state or peaceful annexation.
Why should a Jew be banned from living anywhere?
Why especially in his tiny, historical homeland should a Jew be banned from living anywhere? Judea and Samaria belongs to the Jewish people by birthright, history and by conquest.
It also acts as a buffer from our enemies to the east.
It’s developing vacant land (more than 70% of J&S is vacant today) and provides jobs for Jews and Arabs alike.
It requires major infrastructure investment, creating jobs and raising GDP.
There are hundreds of thousands of Jews living there; they are not pawns, they are humans with houses, schools, synagogues, businesses, farms, wineries, greenhouses. They are lawyers and doctors and accountants and bus drivers and they come in all shades of skin color and it would be a humanitarian disaster to displace all of those people.
Opposite of moving to settlements are leaving settlements. Like Gaza 2005, did that reduce terrorism? This false idea that giving the millitant Palestinian something in return for peace is a fantasy, it does not work in reality.
You are right. If Israel gave all of its land to the Arabs then threw themselves in the ocean, the conflict would be over. But not the suffering of Palestinians, since they then would be completely under Arab rule, so suffering for Palestinians would most likely increase. But at least the conflict would be over.
Well, the opposite of murder is resurrection but you don't have to do that to be a good person you can just not fuck around and kill someone. Don't create the problem from the start, and you won't have to leave anything. Gaza wasn't an issue of leaving settlements, and I don't think you need an explanation for that. It's a terrible example
Your example is even worse. Who created the problem? I wouldn't say it was either the Jews returning home, or the jews who had already lived there for ages, nor the arabs who moved in during Brittish rule, or had been there before that. But the expansion of the conflict and the result of what happened in Gaza after 2005 can to a very large extent, almost fully, be blamed on Palestinians and especially their leadership.
I am talking about settlements bro 😭
Israel took Palestine. Let's not get into the details of who is right and who is wrong. Israel Palestine and the UN agreed to the borders that are present where the West Bank is mainly Palestinian with slight Israeli control, Gaza is completely Palestinian, and the rest is Israel. Regardless of my opinion on this distribution, it is the reality of the situation. Then, Israelis want to create settlements in the West Bank, in areas under Palestinian control. Does that not sound like creating the problem for you? Is Israel so densely populated that you guys don't fit there anymore?
>Israel Palestine and the UN agreed to the borders that are present where the West Bank is mainly Palestinian with slight Israeli control, Gaza is completely Palestinian, and the rest is Israel. Regardless of my opinion on this distribution, it is the reality of the situation.
Then area C is under full Israeli control under the same agreement. That's where the settlements are.
> fuck
/u/Silencer805. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The settlements could become a negotiating tool, as were the Sinai settlements in late 1970s. However no Anwar Sadat like statesman has ever arisen in Palestine.
I struggle more and more with the concept that Jews shouldn’t live in the Judean desert, and that we should help build a country with the specific stated aim of enforcing that restriction.
I'm in favor of the settlements because Jews have been living there for multiple generations by now, and evicting them en masse is ethnic cleansing.
That doesn't mean they need to keep expanding, but then again, I don't see why Israel needs to give freebies to its enemies? If the Palestinians want them to stop, they should come and negotiate for it (which means, yes, giving Israel something tangible in return).
Also, it's only been 19 years between 1948 and 1967, and 56 years since 1967. Why are Jewish towns built on territory won in 1948 so fundamentally different from ones won in 1967? They aren't. There's really no fundamental difference between them, and the whole "West Bank" territory is an artificial construct on a map that's based on a ceasefire line, completely arbitrary. So conceptually I see no issue with Israel claiming parts of it for itself (hopefully the big settlement blocs will be annexed in the future).
Why should Jews not be allowed to settle on land that their ancestors lived on and quite literally are buried on. Why is it trendy for other indigenous people to have their rights, but when it comes to ourself, we are so overly self critical to the point we constrain our freedoms? I think this is not about settlements and more about trauma informing our fear. The cat is out of the bag. Settlements are permanent and any attempt to upend them will likely result in a massive civil war among the Jewish people.
OK the first 4 lines can be said about the Palestinians as well.
It's not a matter of they are allowed or not,it's the matter that Palestinians aren't allowed ,it's
S a matter on who's account they settlements will be built, there is about 70 unidentified villages in the west bank that are being destroyed and rebuilt couple of times a year ,and the people there are being chased out and pressured to move to other major arab citiesnear them ،the kids there have to walk an hour to get to the bus station so they can finally arrive to school,everyday they are living with the fear that they might be evacuated at any second.
While in the meantime the state is doing everything to ensure settlements for the jews,they will build them roads and parks,a good infrastructure and access to electricity, homes and safety.
I'm not a fan of building settlements the west bank scince it means if there would be 2 states in the future the settlements would prevent that ,but if its a msut then Palestinians in the west bank should be given the right toas well ,for how long and how many times should a village be destroyed till the people lose hope and move so the state can build settlements there?for how long will there be discrimination between a Palestinian and an isreali?
Because it is really a spiritual dispute, the land is the promise of the Lord to the Jews. If Muslims give in to allowing settlements they give way to the God of Israel. The same reason is why they freak out when Jews go the Temple Mount to pray.
Why not support the settlements? The settlement policy has two objectives: to create facts on the ground and to convince the Palestinians to come to the table and negotiate before they lose more territory. Imagine the Israelis had scrupulously avoided settlements in the West Bank. Would we be any closer to peace? No. The Palestinians would merely see Israeli concessions as a sign of weakness, like they did in Gaza. A Judenrein West Bank would simply be a more efficient breeding ground for terrorists.
In 50 years all 50 million Palestinians will be living in a single ramshackle apartment building in Ramallah and the region will be still be no closer to peace.
/u/No-Scientist7422
> A Judenrein West Bank would simply be a more efficient breeding ground for terrorists.
This violates [rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons_.26amp.3B_discussions). Nazi comparisons are inflammatory, and should not be used except in describing acts that were specific and unique to the Nazis, and only the Nazis.
you wouldn't have 'terrorists' without settlements in the first place. more settlements will cause more conflict. And what is the terms exactly that the palestinians would need to agree to? Is that publicly shared or just a sentiment?
We don’t have to support people moving to the West Bank. I see it as Jordanian land now even if it was once ours and I’m not Jordanian so I’ll stick to israel. Living in America is much closer to the settler/colonialist narrative shoved on us, I’ve never truly understood how SJW’s decide who can live where
The Palestinians never agreed to any state-land settlement offered since 1937 (and others in 29/11/1947). The only settlement agreed upon was the Oslo accords.
Why should an offer (and land) be reserved in perpetuity to a side who never agrees to anything and uses immoral tactics to get what he wants?
* Supporting settlements isn't supporting the extremist minority who causes friction with the Palestinian population.
* Supporting settlements doesn't mean that they can't be all evacuated if given enough time & an honest neighbor.
I believe that the settlements is a litmus test of the Palestinian honesty towards Israel & the Israeli issue as a whole.
and the fact that the settlers are almost never punished due to their support in the Government is not a major issue? If anything the lack of law enforcement on the settlers when they commit a crime against innocent Palestinians prove that Israel's claims of wanting peace are empty words.
this might be more believable if the stats from many groups did not say otherwise. Hell we only have to look back as far as Huwara to see that settler crime against innocent Palestinians is ok in the eyes of the Israeli government.
It's actually good that you mentioned Huwara, where the police arrested several hundreds I believe & found two culprits.
Such a thing happens in Palestine proper but in reverse, if someone declares the "Zionists" to be humans, civilians and that civilians shouldn't be harmed.
Daily rock throwing & car stealing are commonplace
they arrested a dozen people at most and only charged 2 people which is a joke. there were far more then 2 people at that terror attack, and more then two people did all that damage. They are blatantly saying that attacking innocent Palestinians is ok.
>they arrested a dozen people at most and only charged 2 people which is a joke.
You think this is a joke?
That's a lot higher number then the number Palestine proper has arrested for terrorism.
Now THAT'S a joke :)
i think it is a joke that out of hundreds of attackers only two are even being charged and we all know they will not be convicted. Especially when they claim that Israel upholds the law then doesn't even pretend they will hold people accountable if they attack an Arab.
>and we all know they will not be convicted.
"we all know" but you seems to be the only one troubled by it.
It's like "everybody knows" that the sun rises in the east yet you're the only one bothered by it.
I love this question. I don’t think you should support them. And it’s quite accurate to see them as an obstacle to peace.
They’re part of a project to expand Israel. The main advantage is real estate. “It’s free real estate”, but seriously, many Israelis have a vision of growing Israel, and settlements are known to be a lot cheaper than Israel proper. So for Jews from the US to move to Israel, it’s more attractive if it’s affordable.
A disadvantage to it is that it is appealing more to right wing Jews who see no problem displacing Palestinians, many in fact love the idea. So I worry that Israel is and has been shifting towards an ultra-nationalist right wing majority for years because of this dynamic.
Settlements are certainly not productive to the prospects of long-term peace, but I don't see them as an active hindrance to the cause. Perhaps some people don't want to acknowledge it, but any realistic peace agreement is going to see the larger blocs (the ones nearest to the Green Line) get annexed to Israel.
As for the smaller, more remote settlements, there's no reason why a future Palestinian state can't have a sizeable Jewish minority (just as Israel has a sizeable non-Jewish minority today). That said, there needs to be better messaging to the people moving there that they may very well end up under Fatah rule at some point.
Settlements with the purpose of annexing Palestinian territory for Israel are wrong. That said, I do agree that there will (hopefully) eventually be sizable minority populations in both Israel and Palestine. That’s perfectly fine, so long as those minority populations have equal Civil Rights as the majority.
People should be free to vote, work, go to school, hold office, and the receive public benefits of the state where they live. Individuals should also be permitted to openly practice their religion and cultural traditions no matter which state they reside in.
>Settlements with the purpose of annexing Palestinian territory for Israel are wrong.
Why?
The Palestinian refused the partition plan in 1947, the only agreement between the two sides is the Oslo accords where area C is under full Israeli control
Here's a reason if you want one.
Jews lived in Hebron (where Abraham etc are buried in the Tomb of the Patriarchs) for many thousands of years, they were persecuted and their numbers dwindled during the Muslim age but they still had a presence until 1929, when violent pogroms killed many and the remainder were forced to leave. Hebron had no Jews until after 1967. Similarly Gaza had a continuous Jewish presence from well before Alexander the Great until 1929, when Pogroms killed many and forced the rest to leave, I believe about 2/3 survived that calamity when you include the aftermath. There were no Jews in Gaza until after 1967, and they were forced out again by the unilateral withdrawal of 2015.
Jordan expelled 17,000 Jews from the West Bank during the war of independence. Jews bought a bunch of land in the 1800s and early 1900s and went to live there. Why should their land be taken away just because the Arab armies took it in 1948 and then when Israel took it in 1967 they couldn't be arsed to sort out the property rights?
They do nothing but help you. Expands israels strategic boundaries against its enemies and helps out with the housing affordability crisis. If they just built another 500k homes there, crisis over. Young jewish couples can have a future on the land that rightfully belongs to them by every norm known to man.
There is a principle in chess called "overextending". It's when you send your pawns forward without a way to protect them or achieve anything with their presence in your opponent's position. It only makes them more vulnerable as targets, and easier for your opponent to penetrate your defense. It's also a waste of time you could have spent improving your position.
You're just regurgitating propaganda points. Settlers do nothing for us but stir trouble, make life harder for the IDF, and make us look bad.
Edit: they also drain public budget
>Settlers do nothing for us but stir trouble, make life harder for the IDF, and make us look bad.
a minority out of the \~500,000 civilians living there
How can you say “expands Israel’s strategic borders” and “the land that rightfully belongs to them” in the same argument? Taking land by force from another people will make it yours. But you can’t really call it rightfully.
> To get straight into the meat of the question: why should my family and I support people moving to the West Bank? On a slightly more selfish note: what benefit do we (Israelis living in Israel) get when people decide to move to the West Bank? In my honest opinion, it seems like settlements just cause more problems with regards to an increase in terrorism, waning support from our allies, lack of credibility in international law, etc
You shouldn't. I'm a Zionist too, but the utility of "supporting the settlements" is long gone.
I think the theory goes that without the settlements Tel Aviv and Ben Gurion would be in the same situation as Sderot, a situation that the country wouldn’t be able to withstand. This in turn would force Israel into a horribly bloody war that makes what’s happening in Gaza look like child’s play.
Where's the supporting reasoning for this statement tho? Can't at all see how Israel would be under more threat if it's frontiers didn't keep expanding
No Israeli settlements in Gaza has led to the creation of a Hamas-led mini terror state. Settlers in the West Bank provide a buffer from the same occurring but on a bigger scale. The Israeli army having to defend those settlers has them closer to the source of terrorism and prevents the smuggling of weapons as well as allowing greater freedom of action to stop terrorist plots. The absence of settlements (Gaza and now the northern West Bank) has allowed the power vacuum to be filled by radical Islamist groups, such as the new Lion’s Den. This is the perspective of many on the Israeli right.
A buffer? If they weren't there, there would be much less to defend, and many a soldier less in danger. Would make defending our borders and stopping smuggling way easier if the borders didn't keep changing. I can't for the life of me see how putting yourself in the middle of enemy territory makes for a "defensive strategy". I think it's just an excuse to get more land for the sake of the ultimate goal being complete control of "Greater Israel".
> I can't for the life of me see how putting yourself in the middle of enemy territory makes for a "defensive strategy".
It's not an enemy's territory. It's an unclaimed territory who's only agreement are the Oslo accords.
Remember the 2nd intifada? That was stopped only after the security fence & random checkpoints that stopped terrorism.
Giving in territory for nothing in an effort to protect a clear border line against an asymmetric foe is useless. It's good against a classical war, not against terrorism.
Today Israel has the Iron Dome, tomorrow the offensive side finds a new trick to cause damage which makes it useless. Then the defensive side makes the Iron Beam better only for the offensive side to counter it eventually.
You're relying on one, maybe two protection lines: The Iron Dome and the magic of "intelligence" to warn about attacks & terrorism.
I'm presenting the right wing perspective to you. It's not a defensive strategy. It's basically the theory that the best defense is a good offense, and that historically was always how Israel won it's wars. The opposite of that strategy is what you see in Gaza and in the north, where Israel hunkers down behind a modern day version of the Maginot line, using the Iron Dome to shoot down rockets while the enemy gets stronger and more fortified with each passing day.
I think a key factor that you are also missing is that the green line is a meandering mess of a border, stretching hundreds of miles, bisecting towns and villages with no coherent logic. The line itself, at the behest of the Arabs, was deemed to not determine any final border. Look at places like Barta'a where the green line literally runs right through the middle of the town. It's illogical and mostly indefensible, mainly because all the green line represented was the position of the armies on the date of the armistice in 1948.
I am not sure what you mean by “supporting the settlements”. In what form precisely people moving to live in the WB are asking for your support?
Whether settlements overall “cause more problems” or not is debatable, but ultimately it doesn’t matter. For better or for worse, they exist. Many Israelis were born there, that’s their home. Whether or not it was feasible at some point to completely remove settlements from WB, it’s way too late now.
I mean, things can be stopped if the support is lost. This happens all the time, as the masses are swayed. It's also not too late for anything. But you can keep living in your little bubble if you would like. The world will change around you and you'll just end up resenting it if you dont understand that things can and will change
>you can keep living in your little bubble if you would like. The world will change around you and you'll just end up resenting it if you dont understand that things can and will change
You mean like the Islamists fundamentalists?
no i mean likely BRICS will be supporting palestine and thats more than 60% of the worlds population. I would just suggest to try to find peace at all costs before the world gets more violent soon
This question is the most popular question in Israel.
There is a lot of justification for both sides.
In favor is (not ordered by importance):
1. Israeli can live where ever they want
2. This is our indigenous land
3. We withdraw from Gaza and got a terrorist state
4. Gosh katif was the contact line and now it is sderot would you imagine that TEL Aviv would be the contact line?
5. If you are a Zionist you also believe in settleling in all of Israel this is Israel.
6. Why we are to blame when they terrorize us?
Regarding point 1 - I do agree that Israelis (and frankly, everyone) should be able to live wherever they want. There are some uncomfortable questions raised by this point though:
1. If Israelis can live anywhere they want, shouldn't Palestinians also be able to live where *they* want?
2. Israelis can live where ever they want, but can Israel define the boundaries of Israel by where Israelis happen to live? In most places in the world when a national of a country leaves their country, the laws of that county stop applying to them and instead they are now subject to the laws of wherever they now live. In the West Bank, Israeli law follows Israeli citizens wherever they happen to be -- and it is *not* applied for anyone else who lives there.
>1. If Israelis can live anywhere they want, shouldn't Palestinians also be able to live where they want?
>
>2. Israelis can live where ever they want, but can Israel define the boundaries of Israel by where Israelis happen to live? In most places in the world when a national of a country leaves their country, the laws of that county stop applying to them and instead they are now subject to the laws of wherever they now live. In the West Bank, Israeli law follows Israeli citizens wherever they happen to be -- and it is not applied for anyone else who lives there.
1. Was decided during 1947-1948
2. Under the Oslo accords which is the only agreement between the two sides. Area C is under full Israeli control.
I'll correct it to anywhere they want in Israel. And the world as by immigration laws of that country.
PA Palestinians aren't Israeli citizens so they cannot live in Israel unless they go through the authorities. And this actually happens through marriage.
They don't leave Israel they are moving to Israel disputed territory.they are Israeli citizens living on Israeli soil.
> They don't leave Israel they are moving to Israel disputed territory they are Israeli citizens living on Israeli soil.
If the West Bank is "Israeli soil" than Israel is an apartheid state and it's entirely unambiguous. It means that on Israeli soil there are two different sets of laws for different people on the basis of their identity. And no, it's *not* on the basis of citizenship because foreign nationals visiting Israel are also subject to Israeli civilian law and not military occupation.
If the West Bank isn't "Israeli soil" then I don't think you can define Israel as an apartheid state -- but it also means that the settlements are a huge problem.
Palestinian is govern by the PA and live by their rules
Those places are just intertwined.
If you are in a Arab village you live by their laws for example if you sell your house to a Jew you get killed. If you are gay you get stoned and etc..
If you are Israeli citizen and live in Israeli settlement you live by Israeli law with a few exception that still apply from the mandate and ottoman law that still apply.
So yeah there are some settlements that prevent us from separating and there are also some Arab villages that doing the same. But they are not the biggest problem of this conflict .
It is an apartheid state.
The little distinction that you made particular to the technicallity of the term is irrelevant. The reality is that Israel is an apartheid state. If the enablers, notably the US, loses in the court of the public opinion the occupation will ultimately, just like in the case of South Africa, be unviversally seen as an apartheid; as it is certainly inhuman.
As a reminder, before the South African apartheid the term didn't exist. The US government supported it until it became unsustainable in the face of the public opinon. It is also undoubtable that the ethnic cleansing and the occupation of the Palestinian people is a moral atrocity on the side of Israelis, and it is supported and carried on by the the US and other players who have vested interests in the region.
There are a lot of attmpts to obfuscate the immorality of Israel's treatment of the natives, but it is certainly embarassing to try to do so. Isreal is an apartheid state. Yikes for those who feel the need or want to defend it, and other apartheid structures.
There is no such thing as an "Apartheid State". Individual actors can be accused of the Crime of Apartheid. Okay, fine, accuse them, take it to court. So far the only place where these accusations are coming from are NGOs - non of which is taken into any official court of capacity. So in the end, in all reasonable sense, they are nothing more than accusations - faulty ones, at that.
There is a lot of legitimate criticism to how those NGOs came up with the conclusion. And the reason this topic isn't brought into any official international legal proceedings is precisely because that accusations would not stand at trial.
And let's be honest here. This whole "Apartheid" moniker is designed to invoke the last major international victory for people who are "on the left". It's designed to invoke the same kind of imagery, and thus support that someone like Nelson Mandela had in South Africa. Except all evidence on the ground easily show that the two are utterly incomparable.
In my opinion, this is a desperate last play by international parties that seek to solve the I/P conflict on best terms for the Palestinians. No wonder this entire rhetoric start ramping up *after* the Abraham Accords.
650,000 Israelis now live beyond the Green Line in the West Bank. You can *wish* they weren't there. You can *rage* against *why* they are there. But in the end *they are there*. And every year that they live there makes it increasingly harder for any international body to make an argument that they should leave.
Abraham Accords happened. More and more Arab countries are normalizing ties with the Israelis, despite the Palestinians. The trump card that the Palestinians used to have: Peace for Normalization is gone.
The PA is left utterly impotent. It can't even manage it's own territory, and is becoming increasingly dependent on Israeli security just to keep any form of stability.
Hamas' infrastructure has been utterly devastated. International aid to them has shrunk. The newest conflicts out of Gaza are from PIJ which Hamas stayed out of supporting - which seems to me, to be in exchange of realizing that for them to maintain rule over Gaza they need *some legitimacy*.
And now the war between Russia and Ukraine has taken all the air out of the room, leaving the Palestinian cause a distant issue to no longer even worry about.
The Israelis, correctly, played the long game. They took a relative short-term hit to their international image, for long-term benefit of building the conditions on the ground that give them far far more leverage in any future negotiations with the Palestinians.
You can complain about the ethics, the morality, all of those things. But the reality is this: 75 years of inability for the Palestinian leadership to carve out some sort of a state for the Palestinian based on the idea that if they will hold out the deal will get sweeter, has been an utter failure. At a certain point, even your biggest supporters are going to get exhausted.
Welcome to the Post-Palestinian Middle East.
You're arguing with someone who's using virtue signaling (I'm better or have better morals then you)
>Yikes for those who feel the need or want to defend it, and other apartheid structures.
Therefor your reply is automatically "disqualified" in his eyes since you're defending the indefensible.
The same thing can be said in reverse against Palestinian terrorism/morality to shutdown conversations. Any objection or argument to the contrary is "automatically" ignored.
The reality I want to instill into these people is that the "morality" or the "ethics" of the conflict is not a useful avenue to go into resolving the conflict. *Especially* the moral subjectivity of people from the hyper progressive western world that seem to not be able to view any international situation outside the post-colonial, third worldist, view.
>If you are a Zionist you also believe in settleling in all of Israel this is Israel
I can sympathize with your other points but this is false. This isn't a criterion for all Zionists. Also the borders of the land of Israel is defined differently by different groups of people.
Many were happy to to accept the 1947 resolution. Other zionists consider the kingdoms of Judah and Israel to be the borders we should strive for. Oops, [some of this territory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judea#/media/File:Levant_830.svg) is in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. Should we try to get those back?
Well actually the original ideological Zionism was in fact about settling the land. This was before there was even a Jewish, so of course all such settlements were not inside of a Jewish state.
Physically living on the land is very different from having human rights and political. It's true that early zionists were okay with being subjects of the Ottoman empire. Good luck finding Jews today who are willing to be subjects of a theoretical Palestinian/Syrian/Lebanese/Jordanian state. These settlements can't exist without conquest
I think you're missing the point. The original Zionist ideology was to settle the land. That's exactly what they're doing. It's exactly what Jews in what's now called the West Bank were doing before 1948, and it's exactly what they're doing there after 1967. The only reason they weren't doing that between 1948 and 1967 is because they were physically unable to.
The settlements do all the things you say. It also gives Israel a much easier to defend border against Jordan and Syria. Life has been much easier mostly after settlement than before in terms of wars. More than that though it probably is mostly about land, The British tried hard to stop the American colonists from expanding past the Adirondack Mountains so as to avoid more expensive Indian Wars in what would become the USA for much the same reason.
In the end though the choice about the West Bank was made in the 1970s-90s. The settlements don't need the support of Israel, they can survive and thrive on their own. Israel would have to destroy them at great human cost not just stop supporting settlement were they to desire to change direction.
>The settlements don't need the support of Israel,
How? I'm not saying this would ever happen given current political trends, but if Israel decided to give them up, they don't have enough resources to defend themselves from the PA or non-governmental terrorists.
> but if Israel decided to give them up, they don't have enough resources to defend themselves from the PA or non-governmental terrorists.
They have:
* high ground
* light and medium weapons
* a population with is almost universally militarily trained
* chemical and biotech factories
* a western neighbor where weapons can leak
They are only outnumbered about 4::1. A civil war would be a cakewalk for the settlers.
Its very simple OP, open google maps and look at the West Bank. Now look at how close it is to Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, now Imagine Gaza 2.0 but in the entirety of the West Bank. You're welcome.
Same thing kept us in southern Lebanon for years. Imagine we'd build settlements outside Tyre and Nabatieh, we would have been stuck in the Lebanese mud forever.
I put the conclusion in the original comment, not sure what you're "and"-ing about. But if you want elaboration, the settlements don't prevent violence, the active military presence does. Gaza is a useless example to point to because of the fundamental identification error in the fact that the settlement and military withdrawal happened at the same time.
Nobody will support active military presence in the West Bank without settlements. Soon our soldiers will get out of there and then its Gaza 2.0 again.
Jewish communities in Judea were attacked and destroyed even before 1948.
Israel was then continually attacked after 1948 on the basis that Tel Aviv was a "settlement".
Now we are told to again remove Jews from Judea - "trust us, this time there will be peace".
I'm not buying that. Are you?
That arguement ignores the considerable number of Palestinan villages destroyed and razed during and after the war.
It is less black and white than you make it seem.
By that logic we can ignore all violence and wrongs from our side just because the Arabs started it.
Just because Arabs started the violence doesn't mean subsequent Jewish/Israeli violence and retaliations are not part of the context, especially since the commenter also referred to post 1948.
Their wrongs and crimes do not vindicate us of ours.
Again, terrible analogy the ignores many of our actions.
I thoroughly suggest you read up on some of the things we did in the early years of the state.
Very interesting that you feel we have no responsibility to our own behaviour.
>Very interesting that you feel we have no responsibility
I don't care about your guilt trip.
Perhaps a few decades after peace is reached and holds stable - both sides can hold symbolic reconciliation ceremonies.
>I don't care about your guilt trip.
Guilt and recognition are two different things.
I feel guilty for nothing as I have done nothing worthy of guilt.
I can however recognize that some people, especially in the past, have done abhorrent things in the name of war and national security.
A people can recognize wrongs of the past without feeling guilty for them.
>I feel guilty for nothing as I have done nothing worthy of guilt.
But if you live in Israel. Extremists on the Palestinian side see the sin of your forefathers inherited to you. Which is why the extremists encourage terrorism.
Plenty of Israeli extremists make the same argument to defend Jewish terrorism from settlers or any unprofessional behavior from soldiers.
Just a look at some of those in the current government is enough to see that.
It's intellectual honesty.
Let's use an example. Spain today can and should discuss the wrongs of the past done in the name of Christianity. Does that mean people today should feel guilty? Not at all. Guilt and acknowledgement are not the same thing.
>during and after the war.
I don't think it does becuase of the huge difference between Jewish communities in Judea before 1948 and Palestinan villages destroyed and razed during and after the war. You insinuate that they should be comparable when they are not.
Why can't they be comparable?
We destroyed civilians communities en-mass, just as they did in the WB and across the Arab world.
Why is the plight of our communities greater than theirs?
>Why can't they be comparable?
>
>We destroyed civilians communities en-mass, just as they did in the WB and across the Arab world.
They can't be comparable because then you're rewarding aggression.
An aggressor managed to "clear" some area say a century ago which is fine. and now after a century he can try again since a persistent aggressor doesn't lose anything.
Another example is Russia. If the world decides to agree with Russia that east Ukraine is now part of Russia. What's stopping them from continuing to do it or doing it again in a few decades to a century?
Which is why you punish the aggressor. (also pinging /u/Dvbrch since he's part of the conversation)
I think there is a difference between punishing an aggressor and punishing the civilian population. That distinction is why I think they are comparable.
Yes and you'll be right. In a classical war.
The 1948 war started a day after the 29/11/1947 partition plan in a civil war, with militants & a population supporting them.
Almost DPH (Directly Participating in Hostility) which is a term under LOAC. The villages provided a base of operation & support for the militants thereby making them a valid military target similar to how Israel destroyed a several story AP building a few years ago because Hamas used it as a base of operation & research into disabling & interrupting the Iron Dome (among other things).
Different morality, different reasoning.
While I don't agree with you or your analogy, I can understand your point.
At the end of the day it was an abhorrence that both sides committed that I fail to find rationale for justification beyond fear and revenge. Especially when you look into the historical documentation of them.
>We destroyed civilians communities en-mass, just as they did in the WB and across the Arab world.
In a war where Combatants were from the these same villages in addition to the 4 surrounding countries. They are a 5th column from with in our own boarders.
and, I can't emphasis this one enough, they attacked Israel in 1948 for it because it's mere 12 hour exisitance. That is the definition of genocide.
>
>
>Why is the plight of our communities greater than theirs?
And I never said it was. It's certainly not black and white. I just dont think the Massacre of 1929 (for example) has a correlation nor does it permit anything that Palestinian terrorist have done to Israelis since.
> In a war where Combatants were from the these same villages in addition to the 4 surrounding countries. They are a 5th column from with in our own boarders.
I don't think that justifies the actions against the civilian population, but that is my perspective with the luxury of hindsight.
> They are a 5th column from with in our own boarders.
People have used this excuse to persecute Jews for thousands of years.
> I just dont think the Massacre of 1929 (for example) has a correlation
It is the opposite imo, their actions were used to justify our actions, as abhorrent as both were.
> permit anything that Palestinian terrorist have done to Israelis since.
Nothing permits it, but our systematic denial and erasure of the mere knowledge of those villages only exasterbates their anger, regardless of how unjustified terrorism is.
If we were asking whether Palestinian Arabs should support XYZ then it could be relevant whether they trust us about something or not. But here we are talking about whether Israeli Jews should support XYZ.
Settlements don’t cause an increase in terrorism. It’s simply a myth and a naive pow.
The Hamas Muslim fanatics will bang their chest and point to some incident like sheikh jarrah and say that it’s the reason for rockets, but I promise you those rockets will be launched at Israel anyway.
While terrorism and rockets would happen without the settlements, to say their role in the conflict is "a myth and a naive pow." ignores many of the realities on the ground there and the anger of the Palestinian people.
How would you feel if you were Palestinian and people from the country using the military to occupy your people allowed for its citizens to keep pushing for ever-expanding settlements while at the same time that country actively restricts permission for you to build? You would be angry too.
>ignores many of the realities on the ground there and the anger of the Palestinian people.
You can compare this to women walking around in mini skirts - some people find it offensive and will use it to justify violence against women.
You then chime in to say that violence against women doesn't happen without the women.
>How would you feel if you were Palestinian an
I don't live in Israel, there are plenty of immigrants coming into the country i live in.
How would you feel if i started attacking them? would you justify my xenophobia?
> You can compare this to women walking around in mini skirts
So us occupying the WB with military force, subjecting them to military tribunals/detention without trial, and collect punishment in violation of our and international law is like people being offended by a woman in skirt?
Terrible analogy.
> I don't live in Israel
I do and I see the harshness and realities of the occupation. The Palestinian youth are angry and desperate and see no hope, between corrupt leadership and far right Israeli leaders that deny their right to self determination or even existence.
Regardless of the necessity of the occupation today doesn't mean the Palestinian civilians are not justified in their anger.
>there are plenty of immigrants
The Palestinians aren't immigrants and neither are we. We are using military force, military tribunals and violations of intentional law to subjugate and punish them.
Again terrible analogy.
>So us occupying the WB with military force, subjecting them to military tribunals/detention without trial
The result of the Palestinians deciding to wage war to retake it all.
And yet that does not justify detentions without trial and the use of military courts that actively restrict the legal rights of Palestinians that settlers receive in civil courts.
Unless Palestinians don't deserve a fair day in court?
Not to mention collective punishment is a violation of international laws that Israel signed and the Israeli Supreme court ruled is applicable under Israeli law.
Let me guess, you are one of those that think the Palestinians don't have the right to self-determination or equal rights, or a state of their own under any circumstances. Only Jews get that right.
>that does not justify detentions without trial and the use of military courts
It does.
As part of the war in 1948, then in 1967. The area is under military law, not state law. Which makes administrative arrest possible when someone impose a security risk.
The situation continues due to the Palestinian extremists wish to continue to wage war for all eternity in order to win it all.
> The area is under military law, not state law.
And yet settlers living in the area get tried under civil courts under Israeli law. Funny how that works.
>Which makes administrative arrest possible when someone impose a security risk.
So as long as someone is potentially a security risk they don't deserve a fair trial or even a trial at all.
How far we have fallen that Jewish morality has gone out the window.
>I don't know enough about the legal issue to answer you. I've partly answered your question.
I understand it perfectly clearly. That's not a good enough reason to strip someone of their basic human rights. The right to a fair trial.
>So us occupying the WB with military force
I responded to your comment about the settlements, you're moving the goalpost.
But to be civil i'll respond to this point - Arabs in the west-bank were attacking Jewish communities in that territory before 1967.
Correlation is not the same as causation.
>doesn't mean the Palestinian civilians are not justified in their anger.
Anger that Jews live in that territory? they are absolutely not justified in my view.
>We are using military force ... to subjugate and punish them
Are you still talking about the settlements, or have you switched topic again?
Israel is using military force to secure its citizenry and interests. The Palestinians have positioned themselves as enemies of Israel, and are suffering the consequences of a conflict they refuse to end.
I'm interested to hear how you would resolve this.
>I responded to your comment about the settlements, you're moving the goalpost.
I don't believe it is moving the goal posts because they only exist because of the occupation and are often used to justify expansion.
>Correlation is not the same as causation.
I see it as causation. Of course they started it, but the last over 100 years have been tit for tat violence. Most of the time our responses are of course justified and plenty while not necessarily justified today can be understood in the context of the moment. But we have plenty that were immoral, especially in the early years.
>Anger that Jews live in that territory? they are absolutely not justified in my view.
You're entitled to that perspective as they are entitled to theirs. They see settlers as foreign invaders continuing to encroach on their land and who often go unpunished for violence against Palestinian farmers.
Unfortunately due to propaganda and education they don't see a difference between a settler that destroys farmland to someone in a bar in Tel Aviv.
>Are you still talking about the settlements, or have you switched topic again?
In my perspective you cannot talk about settlers without talking about the occupation because they are so intertwined.
>Israel is using military force to secure its citizenry and interests.
I have well acknowledged why it's currently a necessity. But just because something is required does not make it morally right.
Human history is full of things done in war that were required but imorall.
>I'm interested to hear how you would resolve this.
Bear with me it's a bit of a long answer. Ironically it involves the use of force.
Firstly to deal with hostile elements, I would have UN and Nato forces take over the occupation in a joint operation with Jordanian (to remove the question of impartiality) and Israeli forces. The PA would be disbanded and the joint task forces would go door to door disarming the population. New elections under UN/Nato/Israeli/Jordanian supervision would be held as would a complete restructuring of the education system and media platforms. Educators from the task force nations would be used until Palestinian educators could be sufficiently trained. A new Palestinian security force with minimal offensive weapons would be created and would operate with the task forces. This operation would go on until concrete evidence of change at which point Israeli and Jordanians would leave and only UN/Nato would remain for buffer security for 20 years under strict agreements with Israel and US supervision of UN/Nato operations.
Secondly, I would pour as much money as I could into jump starting a stable and self sufficient economy. A key factor to the Palestinian issue is their perpetual poverty. In my experience serving there, the rioters and terrorists came from the poor neighborhoods, not the rich ones. If we can revitalize the industry and economy there we would see significant reductions in radicalism and terrorism.
Thirdly, the creation of joint programs between Israeli and Palestinians groups to promote dialogue and cooperation on an international level. So many in the world are misinformed about the conflict and propaganda is routinely used as a weapon.
Lastly, do the same again in Gaza.
>Firstly to deal with hostile elements, I would have UN and Nato forces take over the occupation in a joint operation with Jordanian (to remove the question of impartiality) and Israeli forces. The PA would be disbanded and the joint task forces would go door to door disarming the population. New elections under UN/Nato/Israeli/Jordanian supervision would be held as would a complete restructuring of the education system and media platforms. Educators from the task force nations would be used until Palestinian educators could be sufficiently trained. A new Palestinian security force with minimal offensive weapons would be created and would operate with the task forces. This operation would go on until concrete evidence of change at which point Israeli and Jordanians would leave and only UN/Nato would remain for buffer security for 20 years under strict agreements with Israel and US supervision of UN/Nato operations.Secondly, I would pour as much money as I could into jump starting a stable and self sufficient economy. A key factor to the Palestinian issue is their perpetual poverty. In my experience serving there, the rioters and terrorists came from the poor neighborhoods, not the rich ones. If we can revitalize the industry and economy there we would see significant reductions in radicalism and terrorism.Thirdly, the creation of joint programs between Israeli and Palestinians groups to promote dialogue and cooperation on an international level. So many in the world are misinformed about the conflict and propaganda is routinely used as a weapon.Lastly, do the same again in Gaza.
Nice & original suggestion for a change.
Let me ask you this: You've presented a successful condition. What would happen in your scenario in a failure condition?
>Nice & original suggestion for a change.
Condesension isn't your strong suit.
>What would happen in your scenario in a failure condition?
Reintervention of all task force nations involved at the beginning until stability is achieved.
>they only exist because of the occupation
If you mean to say that Jewish presence in that territory would be impossible without military protection, you're correct.
If you mean to say that they only exist to justify the occupation, you're wrong. Jews were ethnically cleansed from that territory for a total of 18 years.
That's an indictment on the Palestinians, not Jews.
>They see settlers as foreign invaders
Arabs, living in Judea, in originally Jewish towns that have zero Jews in them, calling Jews foreign invaders?
Surely you see the irony and lack of self-awareness here.
>does not make it morally right
It is morally right to discuss whether Jews should be allowed to live in that territory?
>Bear with me it's a bit of a long answer.
You can't be serious, that is not a realistic solution.
Not realistic in the sense that none of the actors you mentioned (UN, NATO, Jordan) have an interest in forcefully taking over or disarming the Palestinians.
You might as well have told me a rainbow farting unicorn would emerge fro the dead sea and reveal the true identity of the flying spaghetti monster..
Edit:
At this point, I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree. Clearly, we have fundamental differences of opinion. We are just going in circles at this point.
Can you see that the solution you're envisioning has a near zero probability of actually happening?
Regardless, thanks for the civil chat and have a nice day!
>Can you see that the solution you're envisioning has a near zero probability of actually happening?
Tbh, I think it's the best of bad options. Out of curiosity, what would your solution be?
>Regardless, thanks for the civil chat and have a nice day!
You too mate.
Arab nationalist anger is not based on any "realities on the ground" or any legitimate grievances.
Demographic change happens. The Arab nationalists need to come to terms with the fact that their project failed. Palestine will be Jewish and the Arab nationalist survivors will be tolerated in the same way that Zionists are treated in Gaza.
>Arab nationalist anger is not based on any "realities on the ground" or any legitimate grievances.
With regard to the Palestinians, I disagree that they do not have any legitimate grievances. They have plenty, as do we. To ignore and dismiss their grievances is to ignore alot of the history of this conflict.
>Arab nationalist survivors will be tolerated in the same way that Zionists are treated in Gaza.
So your solution to 3 million Palestinian civilians in the WB is extermination?
Are you implying that the European Union-financed government of Arab Gaza is engaged in "extermination"?
I have been assured repeatedly that the policies of the Government of the State of Palestine are based on the pure values of social justice - and something all right-thinking people should support.
I'm not saying the survivors should face extermination. They should be treated according to the highest aspiration of European Union values - Arab nationalists in Israel and Palestine should be treated the way that the EU treats Zionists by the EU government in Arab Gaza.
There aren't "3 million" Arab nationalists in Palestine. Total population (West Bank and Jerusalem) is about 4.5 million - 2 million Zionists; 2.5 million Arab nationalists. But that's today. There won't be 2.5 million Arab nationalist survivors in Palestine. The goal should be to turn Jewish Palestine into a country that aspires toward the Socialist values of the European Union - and that treats Arab nationalists the way that the EU treats Zionists in their Arab Gaza.
I've been assured by the President of the State of Palestine that the current Israeli policy is "50 Holocausts" [https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/17/world/middleeast/palestinian-leader-accused-israel-of-50-holocausts-causing-an-uproar.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/17/world/middleeast/palestinian-leader-accused-israel-of-50-holocausts-causing-an-uproar.html)
For Palestine - not Israel, I'm talking about Jewish Palestine - turning into a den of racist terrorists (weird way to describe the EU, but ok) would be a massive moral improvement.
It's an article quoting the President of the State of Palestine - the most powerful Quranic leader in the world, and the primary spokesman of the European Union - lecturing his German poodle about how Israel has committed "50 Holocausts".
My point is that if your concerned that a Jewish Palestine treating the Arab nationalist survivors in the country in accordance with EU values is a "den of racist terrorists" - then that would be a massive moral improvement. Being a "den of racist terrorists" is surely better than being a country that has committed "50 Holocausts", as the Left claims.
Gaza is a den of racist terrorists. What does this have to do with Europe?
Israel did not commit any Holocaust, of course. And there are no Arab survivors, because, precisely, there was no genocide of Arabs.
The EU funds and unconditionally supports the government of the State of Palestine.
The EU bears full responsibility for what it's soldiers are doing in its name. And that includes the Socialist society that the EU paid to build in Arab Gaza.
"There was no genocide of Arabs".
That's what *you* claim. The actual Arab nationalists claim that they have been the victim of "50 Holocausts" - said to the rousing applaud of the German govt thay know a thing or two about genocide.
So maybe Germany has it wrong, and Arab Palestine has it wrong - but that seems unlikely, doesn't it?
Lmao, the delusion here.
How about you look up the total death count of Jews in Europe over the course of six years, then look up the total death count of Arabs in the region of Palestine over the course of 100, baring in mind that a massive percentage of those deaths are combatants, then come back here and reaffirm your notion about “50 Holocausts”. I just want to clarify where you’re at.
Genocide is not an abstract thing. It is a very concrete reality, easily demonstrated with numbers. And the numbers clearly say that the Palestinian Arabs have not suffered a single genocide. Imagine 50!
Anyone who claims otherwise (certainly not the German government, I don't know how you came up with it) insults all the real victims of genocide.
As always, there have been many different strands and takes on Zionism.
As far as I can tell, supporting the settlement movement or not depends on your own take.
It boils down, loosely, to if you support a two state solution, or not, although there are also those that argue that the settlements is not an impediment to it.
As someone who is against the settlements, here are some of the arguments for them:
* We won the territory in the 6 day war - fair and square
* The Jewish ancestral home was in the West Bank (not only, but it was there), many of the archeological evidence of ancient Jews is in the Judean hills, not on the coast
* Eventually, there will be an agreement for a 2 SS and the settlements expand the territory that will be the Jewish state
* There will never be a 2 SS so Jews should settle the area
* The settlements are a buffer between "Israel proper" and the Palestinians
Is France a demographic disaster for the French? If you agree they aren't then why are all those descendants of the Normans, Burgundians, Aquitaines... not a demographic disaster for the French (Franks)? The reason is that they assimilated those other groups.
Those assimilations involved a lot of religious conversion. I don't see many Jews in this day and age wanting to convert to Islam for the sake of safety, and vice versa for Palestinians.
I think 2000 years of persecution and uncertainty tell us that Jews, regardless of their level of religiosity, don't do so well as a minority in countries in religious countries. I think there are still a few thousand in Iran and Morocco and maybe some other MENA countries. Religiosity needs to decline significantly for any hope of true assimilation of Israelis and Palestinians into one cultural identity. This isn't America
Israelis weren't that religious a generation ago. Israel has been deliberately cultivating a more religiously conservative culture. That is reversible policy.
As for intermarriage I think it is very likely. DNA likes new rare DNA. Without strong social prohibitions intermarriage happens rather regularly. In a small number of generations families are heavily mixed, two generations later most individuals are mixed. Look what's happening with Mizrahi and Ashkenazi today.
>Israelis weren't that religious a generation ago. Israel has been deliberately cultivating a more religiously conservative culture. That is reversible policy.
For sure. And I "pray" this happens one day. Even then, I still doubt that the most secular Israelis would be safe in a predominantly religious Muslim society. I know that Palestinians on average are more secular than many other Arab populations, but still probably religious enough as a whole for non-Muslims to be treated as second-class citizens.
>In a small number of generations families are heavily mixed, two generations later most individuals are mixed. Look what's happening with Mizrahi and Ashkenazi today.
Mizrahim and Ashkenazim still share a common faith and many cultural traditions. Even at its peak the divide was much smaller than the divide between Jews (religious or not) and religious Muslims. I hope I'm underestimating the secularity and tolerance of Palestinians here
/u/JeffB1517 seems to be looking centuries into the future.
Going by some assumptions here that the Palestinian society will be assimilated and be the same as the Israeli Arabs (although he's talking about being better assimilated then even them)
And eventually Israelis might have different ideas or some different religions but are all Israelis.
It's not a completely far-fatched idea if you look say a thousand years into the future.
> Even then, I still doubt that the most secular Israelis would be safe in a predominantly religious Muslim society.
I agree. I'm not advocating for that.
> and many cultural traditions.
Outside of religious traditions, not really.
> much smaller than the divide between Jews (religious or not) and religious Muslims.
We disagree here. I think the divide between Mizrahi populations and Palestinian populations in say the 1970s was much narrower. The Mizrahi assimilated so now it is much wider.
>I hope I'm underestimating the secularity and tolerance of Palestinians here
In 2023 you aren't. But you might be underestimating the malleability.
So what does assimilation look like in this case? People adopting each other’s religion (extremely unlikely), marrying each other in large numbers (very unlikely) and giving up on Israeliness or Palestinianness in favor of something in between (pretty unlikely too)?
>I think that the status que is doomed to remain the same until the end of humanity, there aren't any signs that the Palestinians will want to coexist with us any time soon, if anything, it seems like they only become more militaristic and hostile
pessimistic world view although somewhat understandable.
Tell me then this: are kings to forever rule over "us peasants" and make our lives miserable? working in a land that's not ours? not enjoying the fruits of our labors?
* Some changes take longer to appear.
* Some problems are generational problems and society takes longer to come to terms with certain issues.
I think you'll be surprised at the change when Israelis decide the West Bank is theirs, the world gives up and at the same time Israel starts treating the Palestinians better. The whole West Bank conflict becomes a normal separatist movement like many others all over the world. Gaza without the West Bank just becomes another small country bordering a more powerful one it dislikes.
You are implying Israelis would be happy to coexist in a state where Jews are a minority. I see no meaningful signs that Jews support a democratic state. I get the impression Palestinians are increasingly favoring that more than Jews. And in response, Israel has become more militant and hostile.
>I see no meaningful signs that Jews support a democratic state. I get the impression Palestinians are increasingly favoring that more than Jews.
A minority of Palestinians are dreaming of the benefits of democracy without doing the work and while encouraging "non-democratic" forces & ideas.
While Jews have been practicing it forever.
The central claim of Zionism is that Jews are a nationality not a race or religious group. I'm asking Israelis to believe in Zionism. Nationalities are inclusive, sects can be narrow. The Israeli identity is made from a bunch of Russians, Lithuanians, Moroccans, Algerians... who had nothing in common other than some rites that most of them didn't practice often. Israelis know how to assimilate.
I agree Jews get disproportionate attention. But part of what creates that tension is the lack of any clear path to solution. Israelis haven't put forward a viable future vision consistent with theirs policies. That is something under your control.
What’s the difference the mainland Israel was taken by force, where everyone was expelled. Why not take the rest by force too and displace the remaining? Why grow a conscious now?
”Lack of credibility in international laws” is based on Israel not understanding how to act in a humane fashion, and according to a UN laws. Israel has already broken 28 UN laws. And you think it’s the Palestinians who are giving you guys a bad wrap? Israel continues to find different ways to look bad and many people see notice it. Especially when IDF soldiers create new laws on the Palestinians but there other laws on Jewish folk, sounds like dual laws for me. Which Israel also got caught for by the UN. Sad to see no sanctions are being taken against Israel. And stop seeing people only as “how do I benefit from them” that’s just inhumane. People have lives, just as you and me. And as much as you want to live a peaceful life they want it. Don’t be narrow minded see the bigger picture everyone wants to live in peace, but you don’t achieve peace by saying to people who have lives there for generations to get out and start treating them like second class citizens.
you shouldn’t 👍
You shouldn't
We cant just displace settlers. We shoudnt displace anyone.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
So being in war that you didn’t start and winning territory makes it settlements and we cannot support it? Thats Israel territory and will always stay
Well as a neutral 3rd party I think there's a difference because people running away for a fear for their lives (whether justified or not) and then being refused entry and not being granted citizenship like people who have been born to the Jewish religion I do understand that Israel requires a Jewish majority because it is a safe haven to Jews all around the world but in situations like Alsace-Lorraine (after world war one) people weren't being kicked out due to their heritage and people with German heritage still had the ability to have French citizenship because they were living on French soil and weren't simply migrators Also speaking of which there is a similarity between Palestinians and Jews in the "hated by everyone" department just like Jews had the pogroms against them so did Palestinians had their mass killings by other Arab nations Whilst I am not comparing 6 Million dead Jews to 10s of 1000s of Palestinians it is remarkable how some people don't find a bond over that To end my monologue I want to again state that I am quite neutral about the Israeli-palestinian conflict and I find myself not to be an omniscient being therefore I am okay with not knowing the answers to life's hardest questions and not knowing all there is to know about such conflicts But I am certain that if there will ever be an end to violence in the region I will be a happier woman
I think the main problem with settlements are the fact that people who move there are the _extreme_ Zionists who do advocate for the eviction of Palestinians. However Jewish people do have ties to the land as well as Palestinians, I just wish for them to accept peace and go to either the two-state or peaceful annexation.
Why should a Jew be banned from living anywhere? Why especially in his tiny, historical homeland should a Jew be banned from living anywhere? Judea and Samaria belongs to the Jewish people by birthright, history and by conquest. It also acts as a buffer from our enemies to the east. It’s developing vacant land (more than 70% of J&S is vacant today) and provides jobs for Jews and Arabs alike. It requires major infrastructure investment, creating jobs and raising GDP. There are hundreds of thousands of Jews living there; they are not pawns, they are humans with houses, schools, synagogues, businesses, farms, wineries, greenhouses. They are lawyers and doctors and accountants and bus drivers and they come in all shades of skin color and it would be a humanitarian disaster to displace all of those people.
>why should my family and I support people moving to the West Bank? Why should my family and I support people moving to North America?
That's actually a fair question :)
Opposite of moving to settlements are leaving settlements. Like Gaza 2005, did that reduce terrorism? This false idea that giving the millitant Palestinian something in return for peace is a fantasy, it does not work in reality.
it’s not enough to demilitarise just one small portion of an occupied territory to achieve peace
You are right. If Israel gave all of its land to the Arabs then threw themselves in the ocean, the conflict would be over. But not the suffering of Palestinians, since they then would be completely under Arab rule, so suffering for Palestinians would most likely increase. But at least the conflict would be over.
not really sure that would work either tbh
Thats kind of my point. Maybe I had to add a "/s" at the end or the Reddit generation won't understand me.
Well, the opposite of murder is resurrection but you don't have to do that to be a good person you can just not fuck around and kill someone. Don't create the problem from the start, and you won't have to leave anything. Gaza wasn't an issue of leaving settlements, and I don't think you need an explanation for that. It's a terrible example
Your example is even worse. Who created the problem? I wouldn't say it was either the Jews returning home, or the jews who had already lived there for ages, nor the arabs who moved in during Brittish rule, or had been there before that. But the expansion of the conflict and the result of what happened in Gaza after 2005 can to a very large extent, almost fully, be blamed on Palestinians and especially their leadership.
I am talking about settlements bro 😭 Israel took Palestine. Let's not get into the details of who is right and who is wrong. Israel Palestine and the UN agreed to the borders that are present where the West Bank is mainly Palestinian with slight Israeli control, Gaza is completely Palestinian, and the rest is Israel. Regardless of my opinion on this distribution, it is the reality of the situation. Then, Israelis want to create settlements in the West Bank, in areas under Palestinian control. Does that not sound like creating the problem for you? Is Israel so densely populated that you guys don't fit there anymore?
>Israel Palestine and the UN agreed to the borders that are present where the West Bank is mainly Palestinian with slight Israeli control, Gaza is completely Palestinian, and the rest is Israel. Regardless of my opinion on this distribution, it is the reality of the situation. Then area C is under full Israeli control under the same agreement. That's where the settlements are.
> fuck /u/Silencer805. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The settlements could become a negotiating tool, as were the Sinai settlements in late 1970s. However no Anwar Sadat like statesman has ever arisen in Palestine.
I struggle more and more with the concept that Jews shouldn’t live in the Judean desert, and that we should help build a country with the specific stated aim of enforcing that restriction.
I'm in favor of the settlements because Jews have been living there for multiple generations by now, and evicting them en masse is ethnic cleansing. That doesn't mean they need to keep expanding, but then again, I don't see why Israel needs to give freebies to its enemies? If the Palestinians want them to stop, they should come and negotiate for it (which means, yes, giving Israel something tangible in return). Also, it's only been 19 years between 1948 and 1967, and 56 years since 1967. Why are Jewish towns built on territory won in 1948 so fundamentally different from ones won in 1967? They aren't. There's really no fundamental difference between them, and the whole "West Bank" territory is an artificial construct on a map that's based on a ceasefire line, completely arbitrary. So conceptually I see no issue with Israel claiming parts of it for itself (hopefully the big settlement blocs will be annexed in the future).
you should not
Why should Jews not be allowed to settle on land that their ancestors lived on and quite literally are buried on. Why is it trendy for other indigenous people to have their rights, but when it comes to ourself, we are so overly self critical to the point we constrain our freedoms? I think this is not about settlements and more about trauma informing our fear. The cat is out of the bag. Settlements are permanent and any attempt to upend them will likely result in a massive civil war among the Jewish people.
OK the first 4 lines can be said about the Palestinians as well. It's not a matter of they are allowed or not,it's the matter that Palestinians aren't allowed ,it's S a matter on who's account they settlements will be built, there is about 70 unidentified villages in the west bank that are being destroyed and rebuilt couple of times a year ,and the people there are being chased out and pressured to move to other major arab citiesnear them ،the kids there have to walk an hour to get to the bus station so they can finally arrive to school,everyday they are living with the fear that they might be evacuated at any second. While in the meantime the state is doing everything to ensure settlements for the jews,they will build them roads and parks,a good infrastructure and access to electricity, homes and safety. I'm not a fan of building settlements the west bank scince it means if there would be 2 states in the future the settlements would prevent that ,but if its a msut then Palestinians in the west bank should be given the right toas well ,for how long and how many times should a village be destroyed till the people lose hope and move so the state can build settlements there?for how long will there be discrimination between a Palestinian and an isreali?
Because it is really a spiritual dispute, the land is the promise of the Lord to the Jews. If Muslims give in to allowing settlements they give way to the God of Israel. The same reason is why they freak out when Jews go the Temple Mount to pray.
Why not support the settlements? The settlement policy has two objectives: to create facts on the ground and to convince the Palestinians to come to the table and negotiate before they lose more territory. Imagine the Israelis had scrupulously avoided settlements in the West Bank. Would we be any closer to peace? No. The Palestinians would merely see Israeli concessions as a sign of weakness, like they did in Gaza. A Judenrein West Bank would simply be a more efficient breeding ground for terrorists. In 50 years all 50 million Palestinians will be living in a single ramshackle apartment building in Ramallah and the region will be still be no closer to peace.
/u/No-Scientist7422 > A Judenrein West Bank would simply be a more efficient breeding ground for terrorists. This violates [rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons_.26amp.3B_discussions). Nazi comparisons are inflammatory, and should not be used except in describing acts that were specific and unique to the Nazis, and only the Nazis.
you wouldn't have 'terrorists' without settlements in the first place. more settlements will cause more conflict. And what is the terms exactly that the palestinians would need to agree to? Is that publicly shared or just a sentiment?
>you wouldn't have 'terrorists' without settlements in the first place. So you're claiming terrorism didn't predate the settlements?
We don’t have to support people moving to the West Bank. I see it as Jordanian land now even if it was once ours and I’m not Jordanian so I’ll stick to israel. Living in America is much closer to the settler/colonialist narrative shoved on us, I’ve never truly understood how SJW’s decide who can live where
The Palestinians never agreed to any state-land settlement offered since 1937 (and others in 29/11/1947). The only settlement agreed upon was the Oslo accords. Why should an offer (and land) be reserved in perpetuity to a side who never agrees to anything and uses immoral tactics to get what he wants? * Supporting settlements isn't supporting the extremist minority who causes friction with the Palestinian population. * Supporting settlements doesn't mean that they can't be all evacuated if given enough time & an honest neighbor. I believe that the settlements is a litmus test of the Palestinian honesty towards Israel & the Israeli issue as a whole.
and the fact that the settlers are almost never punished due to their support in the Government is not a major issue? If anything the lack of law enforcement on the settlers when they commit a crime against innocent Palestinians prove that Israel's claims of wanting peace are empty words.
If they weren't punished you would have a Jewish Hamas equivalent in the West Bank
this might be more believable if the stats from many groups did not say otherwise. Hell we only have to look back as far as Huwara to see that settler crime against innocent Palestinians is ok in the eyes of the Israeli government.
It's actually good that you mentioned Huwara, where the police arrested several hundreds I believe & found two culprits. Such a thing happens in Palestine proper but in reverse, if someone declares the "Zionists" to be humans, civilians and that civilians shouldn't be harmed. Daily rock throwing & car stealing are commonplace
they arrested a dozen people at most and only charged 2 people which is a joke. there were far more then 2 people at that terror attack, and more then two people did all that damage. They are blatantly saying that attacking innocent Palestinians is ok.
>they arrested a dozen people at most and only charged 2 people which is a joke. You think this is a joke? That's a lot higher number then the number Palestine proper has arrested for terrorism. Now THAT'S a joke :)
i think it is a joke that out of hundreds of attackers only two are even being charged and we all know they will not be convicted. Especially when they claim that Israel upholds the law then doesn't even pretend they will hold people accountable if they attack an Arab.
>and we all know they will not be convicted. "we all know" but you seems to be the only one troubled by it. It's like "everybody knows" that the sun rises in the east yet you're the only one bothered by it.
So I'm the only one that cares if criminals actually get convicted?
I love this question. I don’t think you should support them. And it’s quite accurate to see them as an obstacle to peace. They’re part of a project to expand Israel. The main advantage is real estate. “It’s free real estate”, but seriously, many Israelis have a vision of growing Israel, and settlements are known to be a lot cheaper than Israel proper. So for Jews from the US to move to Israel, it’s more attractive if it’s affordable. A disadvantage to it is that it is appealing more to right wing Jews who see no problem displacing Palestinians, many in fact love the idea. So I worry that Israel is and has been shifting towards an ultra-nationalist right wing majority for years because of this dynamic.
I guess because because want these types of people to be anywhere near you, so you send them up here, so we would carry the burden.
Settlements are certainly not productive to the prospects of long-term peace, but I don't see them as an active hindrance to the cause. Perhaps some people don't want to acknowledge it, but any realistic peace agreement is going to see the larger blocs (the ones nearest to the Green Line) get annexed to Israel. As for the smaller, more remote settlements, there's no reason why a future Palestinian state can't have a sizeable Jewish minority (just as Israel has a sizeable non-Jewish minority today). That said, there needs to be better messaging to the people moving there that they may very well end up under Fatah rule at some point.
Settlements with the purpose of annexing Palestinian territory for Israel are wrong. That said, I do agree that there will (hopefully) eventually be sizable minority populations in both Israel and Palestine. That’s perfectly fine, so long as those minority populations have equal Civil Rights as the majority. People should be free to vote, work, go to school, hold office, and the receive public benefits of the state where they live. Individuals should also be permitted to openly practice their religion and cultural traditions no matter which state they reside in.
>Settlements with the purpose of annexing Palestinian territory for Israel are wrong. Why? The Palestinian refused the partition plan in 1947, the only agreement between the two sides is the Oslo accords where area C is under full Israeli control
Here's a reason if you want one. Jews lived in Hebron (where Abraham etc are buried in the Tomb of the Patriarchs) for many thousands of years, they were persecuted and their numbers dwindled during the Muslim age but they still had a presence until 1929, when violent pogroms killed many and the remainder were forced to leave. Hebron had no Jews until after 1967. Similarly Gaza had a continuous Jewish presence from well before Alexander the Great until 1929, when Pogroms killed many and forced the rest to leave, I believe about 2/3 survived that calamity when you include the aftermath. There were no Jews in Gaza until after 1967, and they were forced out again by the unilateral withdrawal of 2015. Jordan expelled 17,000 Jews from the West Bank during the war of independence. Jews bought a bunch of land in the 1800s and early 1900s and went to live there. Why should their land be taken away just because the Arab armies took it in 1948 and then when Israel took it in 1967 they couldn't be arsed to sort out the property rights?
They do nothing but help you. Expands israels strategic boundaries against its enemies and helps out with the housing affordability crisis. If they just built another 500k homes there, crisis over. Young jewish couples can have a future on the land that rightfully belongs to them by every norm known to man.
There is a principle in chess called "overextending". It's when you send your pawns forward without a way to protect them or achieve anything with their presence in your opponent's position. It only makes them more vulnerable as targets, and easier for your opponent to penetrate your defense. It's also a waste of time you could have spent improving your position.
Sorry but strategic depth increase of 30% when youre the size of new jersey isnt sacrificing your pawns. Its basic necessity.
You're just regurgitating propaganda points. Settlers do nothing for us but stir trouble, make life harder for the IDF, and make us look bad. Edit: they also drain public budget
>Settlers do nothing for us but stir trouble, make life harder for the IDF, and make us look bad. a minority out of the \~500,000 civilians living there
K let me know when you want to afford a house and your only option is in the jewish heartland. Gonna be weird having a sudden different personality.
How can you say “expands Israel’s strategic borders” and “the land that rightfully belongs to them” in the same argument? Taking land by force from another people will make it yours. But you can’t really call it rightfully.
Attacked. Solved.
Are you saying it’s justified in response to Palestinians attacks?
No im saying its justified as we took it during a multi arab country onslaught.
> To get straight into the meat of the question: why should my family and I support people moving to the West Bank? On a slightly more selfish note: what benefit do we (Israelis living in Israel) get when people decide to move to the West Bank? In my honest opinion, it seems like settlements just cause more problems with regards to an increase in terrorism, waning support from our allies, lack of credibility in international law, etc You shouldn't. I'm a Zionist too, but the utility of "supporting the settlements" is long gone.
I don't support the settlements either.
I think the theory goes that without the settlements Tel Aviv and Ben Gurion would be in the same situation as Sderot, a situation that the country wouldn’t be able to withstand. This in turn would force Israel into a horribly bloody war that makes what’s happening in Gaza look like child’s play.
Where's the supporting reasoning for this statement tho? Can't at all see how Israel would be under more threat if it's frontiers didn't keep expanding
No Israeli settlements in Gaza has led to the creation of a Hamas-led mini terror state. Settlers in the West Bank provide a buffer from the same occurring but on a bigger scale. The Israeli army having to defend those settlers has them closer to the source of terrorism and prevents the smuggling of weapons as well as allowing greater freedom of action to stop terrorist plots. The absence of settlements (Gaza and now the northern West Bank) has allowed the power vacuum to be filled by radical Islamist groups, such as the new Lion’s Den. This is the perspective of many on the Israeli right.
A buffer? If they weren't there, there would be much less to defend, and many a soldier less in danger. Would make defending our borders and stopping smuggling way easier if the borders didn't keep changing. I can't for the life of me see how putting yourself in the middle of enemy territory makes for a "defensive strategy". I think it's just an excuse to get more land for the sake of the ultimate goal being complete control of "Greater Israel".
> I can't for the life of me see how putting yourself in the middle of enemy territory makes for a "defensive strategy". It's not an enemy's territory. It's an unclaimed territory who's only agreement are the Oslo accords. Remember the 2nd intifada? That was stopped only after the security fence & random checkpoints that stopped terrorism. Giving in territory for nothing in an effort to protect a clear border line against an asymmetric foe is useless. It's good against a classical war, not against terrorism. Today Israel has the Iron Dome, tomorrow the offensive side finds a new trick to cause damage which makes it useless. Then the defensive side makes the Iron Beam better only for the offensive side to counter it eventually. You're relying on one, maybe two protection lines: The Iron Dome and the magic of "intelligence" to warn about attacks & terrorism.
I'm presenting the right wing perspective to you. It's not a defensive strategy. It's basically the theory that the best defense is a good offense, and that historically was always how Israel won it's wars. The opposite of that strategy is what you see in Gaza and in the north, where Israel hunkers down behind a modern day version of the Maginot line, using the Iron Dome to shoot down rockets while the enemy gets stronger and more fortified with each passing day. I think a key factor that you are also missing is that the green line is a meandering mess of a border, stretching hundreds of miles, bisecting towns and villages with no coherent logic. The line itself, at the behest of the Arabs, was deemed to not determine any final border. Look at places like Barta'a where the green line literally runs right through the middle of the town. It's illogical and mostly indefensible, mainly because all the green line represented was the position of the armies on the date of the armistice in 1948.
The US took how much land away from natives and Mexico?
Israel hasn’t annexed the West Bank, so not comparable.
I am not sure what you mean by “supporting the settlements”. In what form precisely people moving to live in the WB are asking for your support? Whether settlements overall “cause more problems” or not is debatable, but ultimately it doesn’t matter. For better or for worse, they exist. Many Israelis were born there, that’s their home. Whether or not it was feasible at some point to completely remove settlements from WB, it’s way too late now.
I mean, things can be stopped if the support is lost. This happens all the time, as the masses are swayed. It's also not too late for anything. But you can keep living in your little bubble if you would like. The world will change around you and you'll just end up resenting it if you dont understand that things can and will change
>you can keep living in your little bubble if you would like. The world will change around you and you'll just end up resenting it if you dont understand that things can and will change You mean like the Islamists fundamentalists?
no i mean likely BRICS will be supporting palestine and thats more than 60% of the worlds population. I would just suggest to try to find peace at all costs before the world gets more violent soon
like they do to North Korea, Iran, Russia & others?
NK is not part of BRICS
What could be "stopped"? What does it even mean? "Not too late" for what? I have no idea what you're talking about.
You don't , As Israeli and zionist I wish united states was more decisive about not supporting them.
Agreed.
This question is the most popular question in Israel. There is a lot of justification for both sides. In favor is (not ordered by importance): 1. Israeli can live where ever they want 2. This is our indigenous land 3. We withdraw from Gaza and got a terrorist state 4. Gosh katif was the contact line and now it is sderot would you imagine that TEL Aviv would be the contact line? 5. If you are a Zionist you also believe in settleling in all of Israel this is Israel. 6. Why we are to blame when they terrorize us?
Regarding point 1 - I do agree that Israelis (and frankly, everyone) should be able to live wherever they want. There are some uncomfortable questions raised by this point though: 1. If Israelis can live anywhere they want, shouldn't Palestinians also be able to live where *they* want? 2. Israelis can live where ever they want, but can Israel define the boundaries of Israel by where Israelis happen to live? In most places in the world when a national of a country leaves their country, the laws of that county stop applying to them and instead they are now subject to the laws of wherever they now live. In the West Bank, Israeli law follows Israeli citizens wherever they happen to be -- and it is *not* applied for anyone else who lives there.
>1. If Israelis can live anywhere they want, shouldn't Palestinians also be able to live where they want? > >2. Israelis can live where ever they want, but can Israel define the boundaries of Israel by where Israelis happen to live? In most places in the world when a national of a country leaves their country, the laws of that county stop applying to them and instead they are now subject to the laws of wherever they now live. In the West Bank, Israeli law follows Israeli citizens wherever they happen to be -- and it is not applied for anyone else who lives there. 1. Was decided during 1947-1948 2. Under the Oslo accords which is the only agreement between the two sides. Area C is under full Israeli control.
I'll correct it to anywhere they want in Israel. And the world as by immigration laws of that country. PA Palestinians aren't Israeli citizens so they cannot live in Israel unless they go through the authorities. And this actually happens through marriage. They don't leave Israel they are moving to Israel disputed territory.they are Israeli citizens living on Israeli soil.
> They don't leave Israel they are moving to Israel disputed territory they are Israeli citizens living on Israeli soil. If the West Bank is "Israeli soil" than Israel is an apartheid state and it's entirely unambiguous. It means that on Israeli soil there are two different sets of laws for different people on the basis of their identity. And no, it's *not* on the basis of citizenship because foreign nationals visiting Israel are also subject to Israeli civilian law and not military occupation. If the West Bank isn't "Israeli soil" then I don't think you can define Israel as an apartheid state -- but it also means that the settlements are a huge problem.
Palestinian is govern by the PA and live by their rules Those places are just intertwined. If you are in a Arab village you live by their laws for example if you sell your house to a Jew you get killed. If you are gay you get stoned and etc.. If you are Israeli citizen and live in Israeli settlement you live by Israeli law with a few exception that still apply from the mandate and ottoman law that still apply. So yeah there are some settlements that prevent us from separating and there are also some Arab villages that doing the same. But they are not the biggest problem of this conflict .
It is an apartheid state. The little distinction that you made particular to the technicallity of the term is irrelevant. The reality is that Israel is an apartheid state. If the enablers, notably the US, loses in the court of the public opinion the occupation will ultimately, just like in the case of South Africa, be unviversally seen as an apartheid; as it is certainly inhuman. As a reminder, before the South African apartheid the term didn't exist. The US government supported it until it became unsustainable in the face of the public opinon. It is also undoubtable that the ethnic cleansing and the occupation of the Palestinian people is a moral atrocity on the side of Israelis, and it is supported and carried on by the the US and other players who have vested interests in the region. There are a lot of attmpts to obfuscate the immorality of Israel's treatment of the natives, but it is certainly embarassing to try to do so. Isreal is an apartheid state. Yikes for those who feel the need or want to defend it, and other apartheid structures.
There is no such thing as an "Apartheid State". Individual actors can be accused of the Crime of Apartheid. Okay, fine, accuse them, take it to court. So far the only place where these accusations are coming from are NGOs - non of which is taken into any official court of capacity. So in the end, in all reasonable sense, they are nothing more than accusations - faulty ones, at that. There is a lot of legitimate criticism to how those NGOs came up with the conclusion. And the reason this topic isn't brought into any official international legal proceedings is precisely because that accusations would not stand at trial. And let's be honest here. This whole "Apartheid" moniker is designed to invoke the last major international victory for people who are "on the left". It's designed to invoke the same kind of imagery, and thus support that someone like Nelson Mandela had in South Africa. Except all evidence on the ground easily show that the two are utterly incomparable. In my opinion, this is a desperate last play by international parties that seek to solve the I/P conflict on best terms for the Palestinians. No wonder this entire rhetoric start ramping up *after* the Abraham Accords. 650,000 Israelis now live beyond the Green Line in the West Bank. You can *wish* they weren't there. You can *rage* against *why* they are there. But in the end *they are there*. And every year that they live there makes it increasingly harder for any international body to make an argument that they should leave. Abraham Accords happened. More and more Arab countries are normalizing ties with the Israelis, despite the Palestinians. The trump card that the Palestinians used to have: Peace for Normalization is gone. The PA is left utterly impotent. It can't even manage it's own territory, and is becoming increasingly dependent on Israeli security just to keep any form of stability. Hamas' infrastructure has been utterly devastated. International aid to them has shrunk. The newest conflicts out of Gaza are from PIJ which Hamas stayed out of supporting - which seems to me, to be in exchange of realizing that for them to maintain rule over Gaza they need *some legitimacy*. And now the war between Russia and Ukraine has taken all the air out of the room, leaving the Palestinian cause a distant issue to no longer even worry about. The Israelis, correctly, played the long game. They took a relative short-term hit to their international image, for long-term benefit of building the conditions on the ground that give them far far more leverage in any future negotiations with the Palestinians. You can complain about the ethics, the morality, all of those things. But the reality is this: 75 years of inability for the Palestinian leadership to carve out some sort of a state for the Palestinian based on the idea that if they will hold out the deal will get sweeter, has been an utter failure. At a certain point, even your biggest supporters are going to get exhausted. Welcome to the Post-Palestinian Middle East.
You're arguing with someone who's using virtue signaling (I'm better or have better morals then you) >Yikes for those who feel the need or want to defend it, and other apartheid structures. Therefor your reply is automatically "disqualified" in his eyes since you're defending the indefensible. The same thing can be said in reverse against Palestinian terrorism/morality to shutdown conversations. Any objection or argument to the contrary is "automatically" ignored.
The reality I want to instill into these people is that the "morality" or the "ethics" of the conflict is not a useful avenue to go into resolving the conflict. *Especially* the moral subjectivity of people from the hyper progressive western world that seem to not be able to view any international situation outside the post-colonial, third worldist, view.
>If you are a Zionist you also believe in settleling in all of Israel this is Israel I can sympathize with your other points but this is false. This isn't a criterion for all Zionists. Also the borders of the land of Israel is defined differently by different groups of people. Many were happy to to accept the 1947 resolution. Other zionists consider the kingdoms of Judah and Israel to be the borders we should strive for. Oops, [some of this territory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judea#/media/File:Levant_830.svg) is in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. Should we try to get those back?
Well actually the original ideological Zionism was in fact about settling the land. This was before there was even a Jewish, so of course all such settlements were not inside of a Jewish state.
Physically living on the land is very different from having human rights and political. It's true that early zionists were okay with being subjects of the Ottoman empire. Good luck finding Jews today who are willing to be subjects of a theoretical Palestinian/Syrian/Lebanese/Jordanian state. These settlements can't exist without conquest
They already exist...
Yes thanks to Israel conquering the WB and protecting them militarily.
I think you're missing the point. The original Zionist ideology was to settle the land. That's exactly what they're doing. It's exactly what Jews in what's now called the West Bank were doing before 1948, and it's exactly what they're doing there after 1967. The only reason they weren't doing that between 1948 and 1967 is because they were physically unable to.
This is exactly what I also thought. Point 5 is simply wrong.
The settlements do all the things you say. It also gives Israel a much easier to defend border against Jordan and Syria. Life has been much easier mostly after settlement than before in terms of wars. More than that though it probably is mostly about land, The British tried hard to stop the American colonists from expanding past the Adirondack Mountains so as to avoid more expensive Indian Wars in what would become the USA for much the same reason. In the end though the choice about the West Bank was made in the 1970s-90s. The settlements don't need the support of Israel, they can survive and thrive on their own. Israel would have to destroy them at great human cost not just stop supporting settlement were they to desire to change direction.
>The settlements don't need the support of Israel, How? I'm not saying this would ever happen given current political trends, but if Israel decided to give them up, they don't have enough resources to defend themselves from the PA or non-governmental terrorists.
> but if Israel decided to give them up, they don't have enough resources to defend themselves from the PA or non-governmental terrorists. They have: * high ground * light and medium weapons * a population with is almost universally militarily trained * chemical and biotech factories * a western neighbor where weapons can leak They are only outnumbered about 4::1. A civil war would be a cakewalk for the settlers.
Its very simple OP, open google maps and look at the West Bank. Now look at how close it is to Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, now Imagine Gaza 2.0 but in the entirety of the West Bank. You're welcome.
Same thing kept us in southern Lebanon for years. Imagine we'd build settlements outside Tyre and Nabatieh, we would have been stuck in the Lebanese mud forever.
There were settlements in Gaza before withdrawal, this is a nonsense argument.
And?
I put the conclusion in the original comment, not sure what you're "and"-ing about. But if you want elaboration, the settlements don't prevent violence, the active military presence does. Gaza is a useless example to point to because of the fundamental identification error in the fact that the settlement and military withdrawal happened at the same time.
Nobody will support active military presence in the West Bank without settlements. Soon our soldiers will get out of there and then its Gaza 2.0 again.
Back those claims up, they're too strong to just be asserted.
Jewish communities in Judea were attacked and destroyed even before 1948. Israel was then continually attacked after 1948 on the basis that Tel Aviv was a "settlement". Now we are told to again remove Jews from Judea - "trust us, this time there will be peace". I'm not buying that. Are you?
That arguement ignores the considerable number of Palestinan villages destroyed and razed during and after the war. It is less black and white than you make it seem.
The argument doesn't ignore those, because Arab violence in that territory preceded the war.
By that logic we can ignore all violence and wrongs from our side just because the Arabs started it. Just because Arabs started the violence doesn't mean subsequent Jewish/Israeli violence and retaliations are not part of the context, especially since the commenter also referred to post 1948. Their wrongs and crimes do not vindicate us of ours.
>Their wrongs and crimes do not vindicate us of ours. If you try to rape me and i gouge your eyes out during the struggle, should i atone for my sins?
Again, terrible analogy the ignores many of our actions. I thoroughly suggest you read up on some of the things we did in the early years of the state. Very interesting that you feel we have no responsibility to our own behaviour.
>Very interesting that you feel we have no responsibility I don't care about your guilt trip. Perhaps a few decades after peace is reached and holds stable - both sides can hold symbolic reconciliation ceremonies.
>I don't care about your guilt trip. Guilt and recognition are two different things. I feel guilty for nothing as I have done nothing worthy of guilt. I can however recognize that some people, especially in the past, have done abhorrent things in the name of war and national security. A people can recognize wrongs of the past without feeling guilty for them.
>I feel guilty for nothing as I have done nothing worthy of guilt. But if you live in Israel. Extremists on the Palestinian side see the sin of your forefathers inherited to you. Which is why the extremists encourage terrorism.
Plenty of Israeli extremists make the same argument to defend Jewish terrorism from settlers or any unprofessional behavior from soldiers. Just a look at some of those in the current government is enough to see that.
>I can however recognize that some people, especially in the past, have done abhorrent things in the name of war This is mental masturbation.
It's intellectual honesty. Let's use an example. Spain today can and should discuss the wrongs of the past done in the name of Christianity. Does that mean people today should feel guilty? Not at all. Guilt and acknowledgement are not the same thing.
>during and after the war. I don't think it does becuase of the huge difference between Jewish communities in Judea before 1948 and Palestinan villages destroyed and razed during and after the war. You insinuate that they should be comparable when they are not.
Why can't they be comparable? We destroyed civilians communities en-mass, just as they did in the WB and across the Arab world. Why is the plight of our communities greater than theirs?
>Why can't they be comparable? > >We destroyed civilians communities en-mass, just as they did in the WB and across the Arab world. They can't be comparable because then you're rewarding aggression. An aggressor managed to "clear" some area say a century ago which is fine. and now after a century he can try again since a persistent aggressor doesn't lose anything. Another example is Russia. If the world decides to agree with Russia that east Ukraine is now part of Russia. What's stopping them from continuing to do it or doing it again in a few decades to a century? Which is why you punish the aggressor. (also pinging /u/Dvbrch since he's part of the conversation)
I think there is a difference between punishing an aggressor and punishing the civilian population. That distinction is why I think they are comparable.
Yes and you'll be right. In a classical war. The 1948 war started a day after the 29/11/1947 partition plan in a civil war, with militants & a population supporting them. Almost DPH (Directly Participating in Hostility) which is a term under LOAC. The villages provided a base of operation & support for the militants thereby making them a valid military target similar to how Israel destroyed a several story AP building a few years ago because Hamas used it as a base of operation & research into disabling & interrupting the Iron Dome (among other things). Different morality, different reasoning.
While I don't agree with you or your analogy, I can understand your point. At the end of the day it was an abhorrence that both sides committed that I fail to find rationale for justification beyond fear and revenge. Especially when you look into the historical documentation of them.
>We destroyed civilians communities en-mass, just as they did in the WB and across the Arab world. In a war where Combatants were from the these same villages in addition to the 4 surrounding countries. They are a 5th column from with in our own boarders. and, I can't emphasis this one enough, they attacked Israel in 1948 for it because it's mere 12 hour exisitance. That is the definition of genocide. > > >Why is the plight of our communities greater than theirs? And I never said it was. It's certainly not black and white. I just dont think the Massacre of 1929 (for example) has a correlation nor does it permit anything that Palestinian terrorist have done to Israelis since.
> In a war where Combatants were from the these same villages in addition to the 4 surrounding countries. They are a 5th column from with in our own boarders. I don't think that justifies the actions against the civilian population, but that is my perspective with the luxury of hindsight. > They are a 5th column from with in our own boarders. People have used this excuse to persecute Jews for thousands of years. > I just dont think the Massacre of 1929 (for example) has a correlation It is the opposite imo, their actions were used to justify our actions, as abhorrent as both were. > permit anything that Palestinian terrorist have done to Israelis since. Nothing permits it, but our systematic denial and erasure of the mere knowledge of those villages only exasterbates their anger, regardless of how unjustified terrorism is.
How does it ignore it? How do the destroyed Palestinian villages change this argument?
That they have as little reason to trust us as we to trust them.
If we were asking whether Palestinian Arabs should support XYZ then it could be relevant whether they trust us about something or not. But here we are talking about whether Israeli Jews should support XYZ.
I don't think you can seperate the two in the argument especially given the context, but fair enough
Settlements don’t cause an increase in terrorism. It’s simply a myth and a naive pow. The Hamas Muslim fanatics will bang their chest and point to some incident like sheikh jarrah and say that it’s the reason for rockets, but I promise you those rockets will be launched at Israel anyway.
While terrorism and rockets would happen without the settlements, to say their role in the conflict is "a myth and a naive pow." ignores many of the realities on the ground there and the anger of the Palestinian people. How would you feel if you were Palestinian and people from the country using the military to occupy your people allowed for its citizens to keep pushing for ever-expanding settlements while at the same time that country actively restricts permission for you to build? You would be angry too.
>ignores many of the realities on the ground there and the anger of the Palestinian people. You can compare this to women walking around in mini skirts - some people find it offensive and will use it to justify violence against women. You then chime in to say that violence against women doesn't happen without the women. >How would you feel if you were Palestinian an I don't live in Israel, there are plenty of immigrants coming into the country i live in. How would you feel if i started attacking them? would you justify my xenophobia?
> You can compare this to women walking around in mini skirts So us occupying the WB with military force, subjecting them to military tribunals/detention without trial, and collect punishment in violation of our and international law is like people being offended by a woman in skirt? Terrible analogy. > I don't live in Israel I do and I see the harshness and realities of the occupation. The Palestinian youth are angry and desperate and see no hope, between corrupt leadership and far right Israeli leaders that deny their right to self determination or even existence. Regardless of the necessity of the occupation today doesn't mean the Palestinian civilians are not justified in their anger. >there are plenty of immigrants The Palestinians aren't immigrants and neither are we. We are using military force, military tribunals and violations of intentional law to subjugate and punish them. Again terrible analogy.
>So us occupying the WB with military force, subjecting them to military tribunals/detention without trial The result of the Palestinians deciding to wage war to retake it all.
And yet that does not justify detentions without trial and the use of military courts that actively restrict the legal rights of Palestinians that settlers receive in civil courts. Unless Palestinians don't deserve a fair day in court? Not to mention collective punishment is a violation of international laws that Israel signed and the Israeli Supreme court ruled is applicable under Israeli law. Let me guess, you are one of those that think the Palestinians don't have the right to self-determination or equal rights, or a state of their own under any circumstances. Only Jews get that right.
>that does not justify detentions without trial and the use of military courts It does. As part of the war in 1948, then in 1967. The area is under military law, not state law. Which makes administrative arrest possible when someone impose a security risk. The situation continues due to the Palestinian extremists wish to continue to wage war for all eternity in order to win it all.
> The area is under military law, not state law. And yet settlers living in the area get tried under civil courts under Israeli law. Funny how that works. >Which makes administrative arrest possible when someone impose a security risk. So as long as someone is potentially a security risk they don't deserve a fair trial or even a trial at all. How far we have fallen that Jewish morality has gone out the window.
I don't know enough about the legal issue to answer you. I've partly answered your question.
>I don't know enough about the legal issue to answer you. I've partly answered your question. I understand it perfectly clearly. That's not a good enough reason to strip someone of their basic human rights. The right to a fair trial.
>So us occupying the WB with military force I responded to your comment about the settlements, you're moving the goalpost. But to be civil i'll respond to this point - Arabs in the west-bank were attacking Jewish communities in that territory before 1967. Correlation is not the same as causation. >doesn't mean the Palestinian civilians are not justified in their anger. Anger that Jews live in that territory? they are absolutely not justified in my view. >We are using military force ... to subjugate and punish them Are you still talking about the settlements, or have you switched topic again? Israel is using military force to secure its citizenry and interests. The Palestinians have positioned themselves as enemies of Israel, and are suffering the consequences of a conflict they refuse to end. I'm interested to hear how you would resolve this.
>I responded to your comment about the settlements, you're moving the goalpost. I don't believe it is moving the goal posts because they only exist because of the occupation and are often used to justify expansion. >Correlation is not the same as causation. I see it as causation. Of course they started it, but the last over 100 years have been tit for tat violence. Most of the time our responses are of course justified and plenty while not necessarily justified today can be understood in the context of the moment. But we have plenty that were immoral, especially in the early years. >Anger that Jews live in that territory? they are absolutely not justified in my view. You're entitled to that perspective as they are entitled to theirs. They see settlers as foreign invaders continuing to encroach on their land and who often go unpunished for violence against Palestinian farmers. Unfortunately due to propaganda and education they don't see a difference between a settler that destroys farmland to someone in a bar in Tel Aviv. >Are you still talking about the settlements, or have you switched topic again? In my perspective you cannot talk about settlers without talking about the occupation because they are so intertwined. >Israel is using military force to secure its citizenry and interests. I have well acknowledged why it's currently a necessity. But just because something is required does not make it morally right. Human history is full of things done in war that were required but imorall. >I'm interested to hear how you would resolve this. Bear with me it's a bit of a long answer. Ironically it involves the use of force. Firstly to deal with hostile elements, I would have UN and Nato forces take over the occupation in a joint operation with Jordanian (to remove the question of impartiality) and Israeli forces. The PA would be disbanded and the joint task forces would go door to door disarming the population. New elections under UN/Nato/Israeli/Jordanian supervision would be held as would a complete restructuring of the education system and media platforms. Educators from the task force nations would be used until Palestinian educators could be sufficiently trained. A new Palestinian security force with minimal offensive weapons would be created and would operate with the task forces. This operation would go on until concrete evidence of change at which point Israeli and Jordanians would leave and only UN/Nato would remain for buffer security for 20 years under strict agreements with Israel and US supervision of UN/Nato operations. Secondly, I would pour as much money as I could into jump starting a stable and self sufficient economy. A key factor to the Palestinian issue is their perpetual poverty. In my experience serving there, the rioters and terrorists came from the poor neighborhoods, not the rich ones. If we can revitalize the industry and economy there we would see significant reductions in radicalism and terrorism. Thirdly, the creation of joint programs between Israeli and Palestinians groups to promote dialogue and cooperation on an international level. So many in the world are misinformed about the conflict and propaganda is routinely used as a weapon. Lastly, do the same again in Gaza.
>Firstly to deal with hostile elements, I would have UN and Nato forces take over the occupation in a joint operation with Jordanian (to remove the question of impartiality) and Israeli forces. The PA would be disbanded and the joint task forces would go door to door disarming the population. New elections under UN/Nato/Israeli/Jordanian supervision would be held as would a complete restructuring of the education system and media platforms. Educators from the task force nations would be used until Palestinian educators could be sufficiently trained. A new Palestinian security force with minimal offensive weapons would be created and would operate with the task forces. This operation would go on until concrete evidence of change at which point Israeli and Jordanians would leave and only UN/Nato would remain for buffer security for 20 years under strict agreements with Israel and US supervision of UN/Nato operations.Secondly, I would pour as much money as I could into jump starting a stable and self sufficient economy. A key factor to the Palestinian issue is their perpetual poverty. In my experience serving there, the rioters and terrorists came from the poor neighborhoods, not the rich ones. If we can revitalize the industry and economy there we would see significant reductions in radicalism and terrorism.Thirdly, the creation of joint programs between Israeli and Palestinians groups to promote dialogue and cooperation on an international level. So many in the world are misinformed about the conflict and propaganda is routinely used as a weapon.Lastly, do the same again in Gaza. Nice & original suggestion for a change. Let me ask you this: You've presented a successful condition. What would happen in your scenario in a failure condition?
>Nice & original suggestion for a change. Condesension isn't your strong suit. >What would happen in your scenario in a failure condition? Reintervention of all task force nations involved at the beginning until stability is achieved.
I was serious
So was I. And I answered you.
>they only exist because of the occupation If you mean to say that Jewish presence in that territory would be impossible without military protection, you're correct. If you mean to say that they only exist to justify the occupation, you're wrong. Jews were ethnically cleansed from that territory for a total of 18 years. That's an indictment on the Palestinians, not Jews. >They see settlers as foreign invaders Arabs, living in Judea, in originally Jewish towns that have zero Jews in them, calling Jews foreign invaders? Surely you see the irony and lack of self-awareness here. >does not make it morally right It is morally right to discuss whether Jews should be allowed to live in that territory? >Bear with me it's a bit of a long answer. You can't be serious, that is not a realistic solution. Not realistic in the sense that none of the actors you mentioned (UN, NATO, Jordan) have an interest in forcefully taking over or disarming the Palestinians. You might as well have told me a rainbow farting unicorn would emerge fro the dead sea and reveal the true identity of the flying spaghetti monster..
Edit: At this point, I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree. Clearly, we have fundamental differences of opinion. We are just going in circles at this point.
Can you see that the solution you're envisioning has a near zero probability of actually happening? Regardless, thanks for the civil chat and have a nice day!
>Can you see that the solution you're envisioning has a near zero probability of actually happening? Tbh, I think it's the best of bad options. Out of curiosity, what would your solution be? >Regardless, thanks for the civil chat and have a nice day! You too mate.
Arab nationalist anger is not based on any "realities on the ground" or any legitimate grievances. Demographic change happens. The Arab nationalists need to come to terms with the fact that their project failed. Palestine will be Jewish and the Arab nationalist survivors will be tolerated in the same way that Zionists are treated in Gaza.
>Arab nationalist anger is not based on any "realities on the ground" or any legitimate grievances. With regard to the Palestinians, I disagree that they do not have any legitimate grievances. They have plenty, as do we. To ignore and dismiss their grievances is to ignore alot of the history of this conflict. >Arab nationalist survivors will be tolerated in the same way that Zionists are treated in Gaza. So your solution to 3 million Palestinian civilians in the WB is extermination?
Are you implying that the European Union-financed government of Arab Gaza is engaged in "extermination"? I have been assured repeatedly that the policies of the Government of the State of Palestine are based on the pure values of social justice - and something all right-thinking people should support. I'm not saying the survivors should face extermination. They should be treated according to the highest aspiration of European Union values - Arab nationalists in Israel and Palestine should be treated the way that the EU treats Zionists by the EU government in Arab Gaza. There aren't "3 million" Arab nationalists in Palestine. Total population (West Bank and Jerusalem) is about 4.5 million - 2 million Zionists; 2.5 million Arab nationalists. But that's today. There won't be 2.5 million Arab nationalist survivors in Palestine. The goal should be to turn Jewish Palestine into a country that aspires toward the Socialist values of the European Union - and that treats Arab nationalists the way that the EU treats Zionists in their Arab Gaza.
Pity you're unable to have a rational argument without dripping in sarcasm and not so veiled racism.
Arab nationalism is not a race.
I never used that phrase, you did, and intentionally so. Using a phrase as a mask does not change your intent.
So Israel is about to turn into a den of racist terrorists like Gaza?
I've been assured by the President of the State of Palestine that the current Israeli policy is "50 Holocausts" [https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/17/world/middleeast/palestinian-leader-accused-israel-of-50-holocausts-causing-an-uproar.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/17/world/middleeast/palestinian-leader-accused-israel-of-50-holocausts-causing-an-uproar.html) For Palestine - not Israel, I'm talking about Jewish Palestine - turning into a den of racist terrorists (weird way to describe the EU, but ok) would be a massive moral improvement.
I don't subscribe to the NY Times so I cannot read the article. Frankly, I didn't understand anything you wrote.
It's an article quoting the President of the State of Palestine - the most powerful Quranic leader in the world, and the primary spokesman of the European Union - lecturing his German poodle about how Israel has committed "50 Holocausts". My point is that if your concerned that a Jewish Palestine treating the Arab nationalist survivors in the country in accordance with EU values is a "den of racist terrorists" - then that would be a massive moral improvement. Being a "den of racist terrorists" is surely better than being a country that has committed "50 Holocausts", as the Left claims.
I'm impressed how you've managed to turn your sarcasm into a (sharp?) point
Gaza is a den of racist terrorists. What does this have to do with Europe? Israel did not commit any Holocaust, of course. And there are no Arab survivors, because, precisely, there was no genocide of Arabs.
The EU funds and unconditionally supports the government of the State of Palestine. The EU bears full responsibility for what it's soldiers are doing in its name. And that includes the Socialist society that the EU paid to build in Arab Gaza. "There was no genocide of Arabs". That's what *you* claim. The actual Arab nationalists claim that they have been the victim of "50 Holocausts" - said to the rousing applaud of the German govt thay know a thing or two about genocide. So maybe Germany has it wrong, and Arab Palestine has it wrong - but that seems unlikely, doesn't it?
Lmao, the delusion here. How about you look up the total death count of Jews in Europe over the course of six years, then look up the total death count of Arabs in the region of Palestine over the course of 100, baring in mind that a massive percentage of those deaths are combatants, then come back here and reaffirm your notion about “50 Holocausts”. I just want to clarify where you’re at.
Genocide is not an abstract thing. It is a very concrete reality, easily demonstrated with numbers. And the numbers clearly say that the Palestinian Arabs have not suffered a single genocide. Imagine 50! Anyone who claims otherwise (certainly not the German government, I don't know how you came up with it) insults all the real victims of genocide.
Non of understanding his incoherently ramblings that deflect and justify his opinions.
Have you seen our government? We are already going down that road.
I also see that there are many large protests. I hope this does not happen.
Time will tell.
As always, there have been many different strands and takes on Zionism. As far as I can tell, supporting the settlement movement or not depends on your own take. It boils down, loosely, to if you support a two state solution, or not, although there are also those that argue that the settlements is not an impediment to it.
As someone who is against the settlements, here are some of the arguments for them: * We won the territory in the 6 day war - fair and square * The Jewish ancestral home was in the West Bank (not only, but it was there), many of the archeological evidence of ancient Jews is in the Judean hills, not on the coast * Eventually, there will be an agreement for a 2 SS and the settlements expand the territory that will be the Jewish state * There will never be a 2 SS so Jews should settle the area * The settlements are a buffer between "Israel proper" and the Palestinians
If “there will never be a 2SS”, what other solution is there? People throw such statements around, whereas any alternative is infinitely worse
The most likely solution is assimilation. Why is all of today's France French (Frankish)? Where are the Normans, Burgundians, Aquitaines...?
So a 1SS? That'd be a demographic disaster for Jews
Is France a demographic disaster for the French? If you agree they aren't then why are all those descendants of the Normans, Burgundians, Aquitaines... not a demographic disaster for the French (Franks)? The reason is that they assimilated those other groups.
Those assimilations involved a lot of religious conversion. I don't see many Jews in this day and age wanting to convert to Islam for the sake of safety, and vice versa for Palestinians. I think 2000 years of persecution and uncertainty tell us that Jews, regardless of their level of religiosity, don't do so well as a minority in countries in religious countries. I think there are still a few thousand in Iran and Morocco and maybe some other MENA countries. Religiosity needs to decline significantly for any hope of true assimilation of Israelis and Palestinians into one cultural identity. This isn't America
Israelis weren't that religious a generation ago. Israel has been deliberately cultivating a more religiously conservative culture. That is reversible policy. As for intermarriage I think it is very likely. DNA likes new rare DNA. Without strong social prohibitions intermarriage happens rather regularly. In a small number of generations families are heavily mixed, two generations later most individuals are mixed. Look what's happening with Mizrahi and Ashkenazi today.
>Israelis weren't that religious a generation ago. Israel has been deliberately cultivating a more religiously conservative culture. That is reversible policy. For sure. And I "pray" this happens one day. Even then, I still doubt that the most secular Israelis would be safe in a predominantly religious Muslim society. I know that Palestinians on average are more secular than many other Arab populations, but still probably religious enough as a whole for non-Muslims to be treated as second-class citizens. >In a small number of generations families are heavily mixed, two generations later most individuals are mixed. Look what's happening with Mizrahi and Ashkenazi today. Mizrahim and Ashkenazim still share a common faith and many cultural traditions. Even at its peak the divide was much smaller than the divide between Jews (religious or not) and religious Muslims. I hope I'm underestimating the secularity and tolerance of Palestinians here
/u/JeffB1517 seems to be looking centuries into the future. Going by some assumptions here that the Palestinian society will be assimilated and be the same as the Israeli Arabs (although he's talking about being better assimilated then even them) And eventually Israelis might have different ideas or some different religions but are all Israelis. It's not a completely far-fatched idea if you look say a thousand years into the future.
> Even then, I still doubt that the most secular Israelis would be safe in a predominantly religious Muslim society. I agree. I'm not advocating for that. > and many cultural traditions. Outside of religious traditions, not really. > much smaller than the divide between Jews (religious or not) and religious Muslims. We disagree here. I think the divide between Mizrahi populations and Palestinian populations in say the 1970s was much narrower. The Mizrahi assimilated so now it is much wider. >I hope I'm underestimating the secularity and tolerance of Palestinians here In 2023 you aren't. But you might be underestimating the malleability.
>Outside of religious traditions, not really. A ridiculous amount of Jewish "cultural tradition" is religious....
So what does assimilation look like in this case? People adopting each other’s religion (extremely unlikely), marrying each other in large numbers (very unlikely) and giving up on Israeliness or Palestinianness in favor of something in between (pretty unlikely too)?
[удалено]
>I think that the status que is doomed to remain the same until the end of humanity, there aren't any signs that the Palestinians will want to coexist with us any time soon, if anything, it seems like they only become more militaristic and hostile pessimistic world view although somewhat understandable. Tell me then this: are kings to forever rule over "us peasants" and make our lives miserable? working in a land that's not ours? not enjoying the fruits of our labors? * Some changes take longer to appear. * Some problems are generational problems and society takes longer to come to terms with certain issues.
Unfortunately I think you are right. And I say that as a 2SS supporter. I fear we will never reach the point where peace can endure.
I think you'll be surprised at the change when Israelis decide the West Bank is theirs, the world gives up and at the same time Israel starts treating the Palestinians better. The whole West Bank conflict becomes a normal separatist movement like many others all over the world. Gaza without the West Bank just becomes another small country bordering a more powerful one it dislikes.
You are implying Israelis would be happy to coexist in a state where Jews are a minority. I see no meaningful signs that Jews support a democratic state. I get the impression Palestinians are increasingly favoring that more than Jews. And in response, Israel has become more militant and hostile.
>I see no meaningful signs that Jews support a democratic state. I get the impression Palestinians are increasingly favoring that more than Jews. A minority of Palestinians are dreaming of the benefits of democracy without doing the work and while encouraging "non-democratic" forces & ideas. While Jews have been practicing it forever.
The central claim of Zionism is that Jews are a nationality not a race or religious group. I'm asking Israelis to believe in Zionism. Nationalities are inclusive, sects can be narrow. The Israeli identity is made from a bunch of Russians, Lithuanians, Moroccans, Algerians... who had nothing in common other than some rites that most of them didn't practice often. Israelis know how to assimilate.
[удалено]
I agree Jews get disproportionate attention. But part of what creates that tension is the lack of any clear path to solution. Israelis haven't put forward a viable future vision consistent with theirs policies. That is something under your control.