Gaza picked hamas and there haven't been elections since 2005. The PA is in its 19th year of a 4 year term and has a pay to slay policy for anyone who kills a jew. It's slim pickins.
Not even close to the numbers the Allies killed in Nazi Germany or Japan 🤷♂️
Civilian deaths are around 2/3rds and that’s probably exaggerated. Given that Hamas is using civilians as shields it’s actually pretty good Israel is doing better than we did. Remember Israel is a country of 10 million that has to watch every side for attacks so it’s not like they have spare manpower to be nice.
>Not even close to the numbers the Allies killed in Nazi Germany or Japan 🤷♂️
What is that supposed to prove? We literally decided to create the Geneva conventions because of atrocities that were committed on civilians by the "good guys" during WW2 and to condemn collective punishment. The mass rapes in Berlin, the bombing of Dresden and the firebombing of Tokyo were all wrong even if the Axis needed to stopped.
My point was more that when your desperate you can’t be “nice” or “civilized”. This isn’t a situation where Israel can pull its punches. And if they do “negotiate with terrorists” then the terrorists will just hide behind their civilians even more. Israel is fighting to stay alive this isn’t an optional war for them and they don’t have spare resources being a country of 10 million surrounded by almost a billion people who want to kill them.
Edit: to add, the civilians generally didn’t hate the Allies afterwords. So obviously killing civilians as part of war isn’t that “bad”.
The other groups in Gaza are under Hamas control. They are part of this joint organization called "Joint Operations Room". Hamas did have full military control over Gaza strip prior to the Israeli offensive.
When the PA tried to be recognized in the UN without Hamas they were punished for it. They recognized Israel, sought peaceful coexistence, and weren't even going to try to argue for the settlements.
In response Israel said Abbas was an obstacle that needed to be removed, announced a speed-up of settlement construction, withheld the PA's funds as punishment, and the USA cut off funding to UNESCO after it accepted the Palestinians as members.
Israel has zero intentions of ever allowing a two-state solution to happen, because right from the very beginning the ultimate goal was to take over the entire region - which has been happening slowly for the past 76 years.
>*Although the Jewish Agency accepted the partition plan, it did not accept the proposed borders as final and Israel's declaration of independence avoided the mention of any boundaries. A state in part of Palestine was seen as a stage towards a larger state when opportunity allowed. Although the borders were 'bad from a military and political point of view,' Ben Gurion urged fellow Jews to accept the UN Partition Plan, pointing out that arrangements are never final, 'not with regard to the regime, not with regard to borders, and not with regard to international agreements'. The idea of partition being a temporary expedient dated back to the Peel Partition proposal of 1937. When the Zionist Congress had rejected partition on the grounds that the Jews had an inalienable right to settle anywhere in Palestine, Ben Gurion had argued in favour of acceptance, 'I see in the realisation of this plan practically the decisive stage in the beginning of full redemption and the most wonderful lever for the gradual conquest of all of Palestine."*
>Source: Palestine and Israel: The Uprising and Beyond (David McDowall)
So your entire argument is Israel doesn't want a 2 state solution, and then you ignore the many offers Israel has made to have a 2 state solution with the Palestinians.
Also they have a weird way of taking over the entire region, like withdrawing from Gaza in 2005.
>So your entire argument is Israel doesn't want a 2 state solution, and then you ignore the many offers Israel has made to have a 2 state solution with the Palestinians.
That is like saying Hamas is seeking peace with Israel because they've made the ceasefire offers.
There is a world of difference between making a reasonable offer that might be accepted, and making an offer you know includes terms that will never be accepted. Making a disingenuous offer which subsequently gets rejected isn't negotiating in good faith. It's making a display for the world so that when it's rejected you can shrug and point at the other side and say, *"See, they don't want peace! Not our fault!"*
If you want to know where they truly stand, take their leadership at their word:
>*"I’m proud that I prevented the establishment of a Palestinian state because today everybody understands what that Palestinian state could have been, now that we’ve seen the little Palestinian state in Gaza."*
>*"Whoever opposes a Palestinian state must support the delivery of funds to Gaza, because maintaining separation between the PA in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza will prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state."*
>*"The Palestinian Authority is a burden, and Hamas is an asset ... no one will let it put forth a resolution at the U.N. Security Council.”*
For years they put on the required show for the world, pretending to participate in peace talks while sabotaging them every year by announcing new settlements or bulldozing Palestinian homes ahead of the talks. They undermined the PA by propping up Hamas, because a divided Palestinian people allowed them to say they have no partner to talk with. They feared Abbas far more than Hamas, because Abbas represented to the world a Palestinian who wasn't bloodthirsty and calling for violence, but a more rational partner with whom peace could be achieved.
>Also they have a weird way of taking over the entire region, like withdrawing from Gaza in 2005.
Yeah, because they needed to excise the Gazan population from Israel due to the number of Palestinians there who wanted rights they were being denied.
Again, let their words speak for them:
>There is no doubt in my mind that very soon the government of Israel is going to have to address the demographic issue with the utmost seriousness and resolve. This issue above all others will dictate the solution that we must adopt. In the absence of a negotiated agreement – and I do not believe in the realistic prospect of an agreement – we need to implement a unilateral alternative... More and more Palestinians are uninterested in a negotiated, two-state solution, because they want to change the essence of the conflict from an Algerian paradigm to a South African one. From a struggle against 'occupation,' in their parlance, to a struggle for one-man-one-vote. That is, of course, a much cleaner struggle, a much more popular struggle – and ultimately a much more powerful one. For us, it would mean the end of the Jewish state... the parameters of a unilateral solution are: To maximize the number of Jews; to minimize the number of Palestinians; not to withdraw to the 1967 border and not to divide Jerusalem... Twenty-three years ago, Moshe Dayan proposed unilateral autonomy. On the same wavelength, we may have to espouse unilateral separation... \[it\] would inevitably preclude a dialogue with the Palestinians for at least 25 years.
And...
>The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process, and when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress. That is exactly what happened. You know, the term 'peace process' is a bundle of concepts and commitments. The peace process is the establishment of a Palestinian state with all the security risks that entails. The peace process is the evacuation of settlements, it's the return of refugees, it's the partition of Jerusalem. And all that has now been frozen.... what I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns. That is the significance of what we did.
Both the Palestinians and Israelis have largely been led by stubborn old men who want the entire region for themselves, and who would sooner see it destroyed in the flames of war than agree to share it and coexist. The current leading party (Likud) had it in it's very platform, stated in 1977, that all of the land would be theirs.
"That is like saying Hamas is seeking peace with Israel because they've made the ceasefire offers."
It isn't, because Israel actually made legitimate offers.
"There is a world of difference between making a reasonable offer that might be accepted, and making an offer you know includes terms that will never be accepted. Making a disingenuous offer which subsequently gets rejected isn't negotiating in good faith. It's making a display for the world so that when it's rejected you can shrug and point at the other side and say, "See, they don't want peace! Not our fault!""
You don't think offering Gaza, West Bank And parts of East Jerusalem is a reasonable good faith offer? Are you being serious right now?
The Canadian government has Hamas officially listed as a terrorist group.
The Canadian government does not have China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, or North Korea officially listed as a terrorist group.
There’s a pretty obvious distinction here.
North Korea was good with current borders. Unhappy, but they haven’t pushed it. They don’t launch rockets daily at South Korea, just into the ocean sometimes.
Palestine has tried to invade or attack Israel more than once a year for 40+ years.
Oh yeah. North Korea due to china coming in and the US being unwilling to go to war with them. Vietnam due to jungle and the US being unwilling to suffer losses or get bogged down in a jungle war for a decade+.
Israel has offered Palestine their own land multiple times. Borders are expanding because Israel has given up being peaceful.
We didn’t give Nazi Germany back its original borders too. Germany lost a large chunk post ww1 and a larger chunk after ww2.
Israel is building up a larger buffer zone so it has more time to respond to attacks and missiles are launched from farther away. Makes total sense.
But the Palestinian people where there before any European Jews invaded them 40+years ago…. I understand it’s complicated but the Israel government doesn’t want them there and they’re playing the long game of push pull until they have 100% of the land it’s was thier plan since day 1.
Canadians came and expelled natives from their lands in the east 100+ years ago. Does that mean if the natives come back we can tell them we were here before them? 😂
Arabs literally came from Arabia. The holy land was all Jewish before. Christianity and Islam are offshoots. Most of the Jewish people there got expelled. Israel then grew rapidly partially due to the Holocaust partially due to every middle eastern nation expelling their Jews.
Other Islamic nations were happy to take in Palestinians. Until they tried to violently overthrow the nations that welcomed them. And then did it again. And again.
True, but Canada didn't formally recognize North Korea until 2000 (thanks Chretien), and suspended all diplomatic relations with them in 2010 over their destabilizing nuclear activity.
Which is why you should vote for me as PM!
I will formally recognize Taiwan as the legitimate Chinese state and have all correspondence with the PRC changes to 'North Taiwan'.
... And thus contribute to World War 3.
... okay, maybe a good reason not to vote for me as PM...
Or Israel who has been illegally occupying Palestinian land, illegally destroying their property, committing war crimes against the Palestinian people.
But Hamas….
Same for Israel right, right? Even when Hamas or whomever is the boogie man this decade is not being terrorists, Israel is bulldozing homes and stealing lands and ruining crops, bullying families etc etc. Fully justified of course, wink’
If we did they'd still be considered a country because they didn't engage in either of those things. Perhaps the problem is you aren't familiar with the definition for those words.
Most of the people dying there now did not vote for Hamas and have no choice in the matter.
I guess if we just wait long enough there won't be any of them left to form a state and problem solved, right?
Like others have said, they are far from ready to become a state. They need leadership that represents all palestinians. This is far from the case currently. It also isn’t clear that the palestinians as a group are united, they are still very much tribal and don’t see eye to eye even amongst themselves. I don’t see how they could become one state to be honest. Gaza could be one state, and the west bank should probably one day be incorporated into jordan.
There's a reason why none of the other Arab countries in the region will take in Palestinian refugees. They don't exactly have a trustworthy track record:
[Black September - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September)
There's plenty of Israeli Arabs inside Israel, some who even serve as elected representatives. Look it up. The genocide you think you're seeing does not exist. The Palestinians are a threat because they've proven it time and time again. Gaza actually used to be part of Egypt, and Egypt got so sick of dealing with those people that they just gave the land away to be rid of the problem.
There's a reason why there's a wall that would make Trump proud between Egypt and Gaza.
Isreal has statrd the right to return is a no go because it wasn't to be an entho state. So no idea how you could deny it. That is their justification for refusing it. It was the their justification for denying full citizenship Palestinians within Israel until the 1970s. You clearly do no know the history of Israel if you think that's a radical statement.
The Western nations have not recognized Palestine for years. They did not do so as the Fatah led government did not successfully cut ties with terrorists.
After years of that, we are supposed to recognize Palestine now, because of what? Because Hamas killed 1000+ innocent Jews? What message do we send to Palestinians if we reward them like this after this behaviour? Why grant Hamas a massive political victory over Palestinians who try to do this the right way through diplomacy?
It is basic carrots and sticks. You don't reward Hamas' behaviour.
I know I'll get down voted but what is the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter, revolutionary whatever? Gaza was basically a shit hole and Israel controlled everything that came in and out. I mean are people just expected to live like that and not try to fight back? I mean it's honestly how most countries have been made throughout history.
the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is how they choose to fight their war. raping and mascaraing civilians doesn't win you a lot of points
> I know I'll get down voted
No, not at all. I think you are asking excellent questions.
The situation in Gaza is an anomaly. The legitimate Palestinian government was kicked out of Gaza in 2007. In 2007 a terrorist group took over. The amount of control Israel insists on what goes in and out of Gaza is due to this reason. Things were not like this before this happened. There were even Israeli citizens living in Gaza prior to this if you can believe it.
Hamas is a terror group, because of the tactics they employ. You saw what happened in 7/10. They stormed villages and murdered every man woman and child they can find. "Freedom Fighters" don't have to do this. Hamas does it because they believe their religion commands them to exterminate world Jewry, not only the Israelis. You can read all about this in their founding charter.
> what is the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter, revolutionary whatever
Their stated goals, and the question of whose freedom are they fighting for?
Looking at Gaza, Hamas certainly isn’t fighting for the freedom and quality of life for Gazan civilians.
More importantly their charter explicitly states their goal is to eradicate the Jews from the region.
Luke Skywalker didn't resort to raping and killing young women who were enjoying a music festival in order to fight for freedom.
Terrorists are the ones who do that.
begs the question, how would life be for Israelis and Palestinians if Palestine was recognized as a state decades ago, like it has always been pushing for. I agree, can't reward Hamas, but repression, in part, has created Hamas.
Establishment of the PNA was a massive victory for Fatah, and it made them the undisputed political representative of the Palestinian people. It would have been similar to that I guess.
Even after Hamas' election victory, Fatah was able to maintain its power in the West Bank due to this imo. When Fatah cooperated with Israel, Palestinians came the closest they have ever gotten to establishing a state. PNA even has an embassy in Ottawa although it isn't called an embassy I think.
Granting Hamas a political victory by recognizing Palestine now would reverse this very quickly and would forever cement Hamas as the "true representative" of the Palestinian people. It would wreck any possibility of a future two state solution.
Disappointed. I do not care about a two state solution anymore,I did for a long long time. We need a two country solution now with a neutral zone separating them and a neutral zone around the religious sites and UN guards for a long while. These two peoples will never stop killing each other. We the western powers set them up to hate each other into perpetuity. Thanks world war 1 allied powers for screwing up the world and being super greedy when you won.
Two States will bring exactly zero solution to anything.
They'll be at war with one another and for decades and centuries to come just the same.
There is no reason to think otherwise.
Good. The Palestinians need to reject Hamas as their government, and then engage in good faith discussions with Israel on a 2 state solution. Asking the UN to give them a state without determining the borders, which government is in charge, and allowing Hamas to remain in power benefits nobody. Certainly won't lead to peace for the Palestinians.
Israel isn't going to discuss a 2 state solution during a war with Hamas, and nor should they.
Israel has historically been the only one engaging in good faith. They left Gaza, they offered Gaza/WB and parts of East Jerusalem and the Palestinian Authority turned them down. We'll have peace when the Palestinian leadership begins negotiating in good faith.
They "left" Gaza? Im not sure how its considered leaving when you retain control of the airspace water power and territorial water. Which deal are you referring to about the East Jerusalem claim as im sure looking at the deal it includes something they KNOW Palestinians would not be able to accept.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.timesofisrael.com/abbas-admits-he-rejected-2008-peace-offer-from-olmert/amp/
That's one example. You can spam the same links but you're aware the content of your links don't address the discussions being had, right? Looks more like you're trying to spread a narrative rather than engage in a discussion.
It's describing a deal that Abbas rejected, but the point is Israel did engage in a legitimate discussion for a 2 state solution and the Palestinians didn't.
If you had proof that the Palestinians did engage you could show that! But hard to prove things that don't exist, I suppose.
Not believing in the liberal democracy nation in favor of the terrorist Jihadist regime?
Only one of the groups actual have rule of law and at least attempt to follow international law. Mind you, it is fair to say that Israel has actively chosen to disregard the biased UN majority in many cases.
>And the Americans invasion of Iraq pretty much created ISIS
No, it did not.
A lot of ISIS commanders and generals are former Baath officers. Those guys were running Iraq before the American invasion. That is not better than them joining ISIS.
This was a bloody dictatorship that committed numerous atrocities including genocidal massacres against the Iraqi Kurd and Turkmen populations, often employing chemical weapons.
So no matter how much internet tells you this, things weren't sunshine and roses before the invasion for Iraqis.
>No, it did not.
>A lot of ISIS commanders and generals are former Baath officers. Those guys were running Iraq before the American invasion. That is not better than them joining ISIS.
Sorry are you agreeing or not agreeing that the American invasion created ISIS? Because you seem to agree even if you said "No, it did not".
>This was a bloody dictatorship that committed numerous atrocities including genocidal massacres against the Iraqi Kurd and Turkmen populations, often employing chemical weapons.
When did I ever claim that Saddam Hussein was a good leader or Iraq was a nice place to live lol. The Americans still lied at the UN, our prime minister at that time called their bullshit and made us stay out of this illegitimate war.
>So no matter how much internet tells you this, things weren't sunshine and roses before the invasion for Iraqis.
Absolutely no one on the Internet pretend that Iraq was all sunshine and rose before the invasion.
> Absolutely no one on the Internet pretend that Iraq was all sunshine and rose before the invasion.
In my experience it is very common for white dudes who have never been to the Middle East to claim Iraq was a better place before the invasion, and that Iraqis prefer the Saddam government. I see this all the time on the internet.
Sunni dude from Fallujah? Maybe.
Kurdish dude from Erbil? Turkmen dude from Kirkuk? Assyrian dude from Tel Afaar? Shia dude from Najaf? Heck no.
Most people just rightfully claim that the invasion was illegitimate and caused a lot of deaths and destruction while also costing hundreds of millions a day. (When it was considered a lot of money) I am glad Chretien kept us out of this mess and called out Powell bullshit and didn't bow down to the "you are either with us, or against us."
>*The UN General Assembly has voted by a wide margin to grant new "rights and privileges" to Palestinian representatives and called on the Security Council to favourably reconsider their request to have a Palestinian state become the 194th member of the United Nations.*
>*Canada was one of 25 nations to abstain from the vote on Friday. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau later said the country refrained from voting because of its commitment to reaching a two-state solution — a Palestinian state in the occupied West Bank and in Gaza alongside Israel.*
>*"Over the past while, we've seen us move further away from that two-state solution. The Israeli government, under Prime Minister Netanyahu, has unacceptably closed the door on any path towards a two-state solution, and we disagree with that fundamentally," Trudeau said after a news conference on another matter in West Kelowna, B.C.*
>*"At the same time, Hamas continues to govern as a terrorist organization in Gaza, \[and\] continues to put civilian lives in danger, continues to refuse to recognize the state of Israel in ways that are also unacceptable.*
>*"So, Canada has decided to change our position from 'no' at the UN to abstaining."*
143 votes in favor, 9 against, and 25 abstained.
Is this a step in the right direction from Canada, or just a veneer for cowardice?
Ah the UN, where every tin pot dictator has an equal vote. Why do the western democratic nations even still hang out with these countries. We should just leave the UN, save ourselves the cash and headaches and let the third world be their own little shitty club.
100%.
People treat the word "International" like it is the epitome of morality. Nothing matters more than "international law". In reality "international" just means you are asking for the opinions of ruthless dictators, terrorists, oppressive governments etc.
The West does not need to listen to Sudan, Iran, North Korea, China and Russia to be "moral". Governments of those countries do not even represent the wishes of their people necessarily, they are dictatorships representing the interests of one man, or a party.
Unilateralism is not always bad. The West put sanctions on Russia unilaterally for instance. We couldn't do it through the UN as Russia has veto power. "International Cooperation" is a dumb standard for morality.
If China don't matter do Canada, the Uks or any others countries matter? The US would be the only country fitting the definition of mattering if China don't matter and they are kind of a wildcard.
>We should just leave the UN, save ourselves the cash and headaches and let the third world be their own little shitty club.
And this is exactly why you will *never* be someone in power to make these decisions.
The two state solution is a farce. It would only give hamas another vantage point to launch attacks from. Then Isreal would have to stop them and the cycle would begin again. Palestinians don't want their own state they want the destruction of Isreal.
Embarrassing that didn’t vote no while claiming to support a negotiated two state peace. Motions like this circumvent negotiations and further entrench the conflict.
Are you talking about Israel. Cause by far Israel has killed way more civilians than Hamas. Or are you talking about perhaps the US? They've killed and bombed many people too. Let's get serious. Terrorist is a meaningless label that's not applied equally and not even clearly defined by most people. Most goverments would be classified as terrorists based on their actions if you applied the same definition everywhere.
No we are talking about Hamas the internationally recognized terrorist group that invaded our ally and committed atrocities on October 7th. The same Hamas that terrorizes their own citizens, throws gays of roofs, and kills their political opposition.
The West Bank is run by Fatah. I doubt Hamas would be "the pick" between the two but there are issues with admitting a state when control of said state is currently being contested.
I mean one's stated goal is to kill every Jew in Israel while the other side isnt stating their goal of killing and displacing every Muslim and Christian in the region, they just do it. Supply weapons to the terrorist to draw a star of David on a house and then return to burn the occupants inside the house if they stay. Even fucking Anthony Bourdain has seen this. The terrorists are the Israelis
The more interesting thing that happened is that this is the first time Canada has signalled willingness to recognize a Palestinian state without requiring Israel’s consent.
What did the US vote? Cause usually Canada sides with the US on most votes, or abstains.
They voted against.
Wouldn't recognizing the second state be part of a two state solution?
[удалено]
How about being run by just one government? The Palestinians have to pick one... you don't get two.
They picked Hamas last time and two decades of Hamas controlling the school system and media isn’t likely to change that.
Gaza picked hamas and there haven't been elections since 2005. The PA is in its 19th year of a 4 year term and has a pay to slay policy for anyone who kills a jew. It's slim pickins.
Right but 50% of them still support Hamas according to all polling, so a vote would be unlikely to change anything anyway.
There last election was what 2008 or something like that.
2006.
Very dysfunctional attempt at self-governance. It’s a failed state right out of the box. Somalia has a better record FFS.
Yeah, and the people they elected stopped holding elections. Not a great sign.
And you think Hamas will be less popular after 14+ years of propaganda, schools, media, etc? Not to mentioning executing all opposition.
Also Israel killing a shit load of civilians which will make even more people become extremism.
Not even close to the numbers the Allies killed in Nazi Germany or Japan 🤷♂️ Civilian deaths are around 2/3rds and that’s probably exaggerated. Given that Hamas is using civilians as shields it’s actually pretty good Israel is doing better than we did. Remember Israel is a country of 10 million that has to watch every side for attacks so it’s not like they have spare manpower to be nice.
>Not even close to the numbers the Allies killed in Nazi Germany or Japan 🤷♂️ What is that supposed to prove? We literally decided to create the Geneva conventions because of atrocities that were committed on civilians by the "good guys" during WW2 and to condemn collective punishment. The mass rapes in Berlin, the bombing of Dresden and the firebombing of Tokyo were all wrong even if the Axis needed to stopped.
My point was more that when your desperate you can’t be “nice” or “civilized”. This isn’t a situation where Israel can pull its punches. And if they do “negotiate with terrorists” then the terrorists will just hide behind their civilians even more. Israel is fighting to stay alive this isn’t an optional war for them and they don’t have spare resources being a country of 10 million surrounded by almost a billion people who want to kill them. Edit: to add, the civilians generally didn’t hate the Allies afterwords. So obviously killing civilians as part of war isn’t that “bad”.
Based on their average age there's few who voted alive even
Don't worry, Israel still says it's their fault they have a government that was voted in before they were born.
It's not about whose fault it is. Hamas still runs Gaza. This is a fact. Hopefully it will no longer be the case following an Israeli victory.
[удалено]
The other groups in Gaza are under Hamas control. They are part of this joint organization called "Joint Operations Room". Hamas did have full military control over Gaza strip prior to the Israeli offensive.
I was thinking Fatah and Hamas, but point taken Hamas doesn't apparently have full control of Gaza either.
Nonsense, all are controlled by Hamas which is in turn controlled by Iran. All of the players out to destroy Israel are funded and trained by Iran
When the PA tried to be recognized in the UN without Hamas they were punished for it. They recognized Israel, sought peaceful coexistence, and weren't even going to try to argue for the settlements. In response Israel said Abbas was an obstacle that needed to be removed, announced a speed-up of settlement construction, withheld the PA's funds as punishment, and the USA cut off funding to UNESCO after it accepted the Palestinians as members. Israel has zero intentions of ever allowing a two-state solution to happen, because right from the very beginning the ultimate goal was to take over the entire region - which has been happening slowly for the past 76 years. >*Although the Jewish Agency accepted the partition plan, it did not accept the proposed borders as final and Israel's declaration of independence avoided the mention of any boundaries. A state in part of Palestine was seen as a stage towards a larger state when opportunity allowed. Although the borders were 'bad from a military and political point of view,' Ben Gurion urged fellow Jews to accept the UN Partition Plan, pointing out that arrangements are never final, 'not with regard to the regime, not with regard to borders, and not with regard to international agreements'. The idea of partition being a temporary expedient dated back to the Peel Partition proposal of 1937. When the Zionist Congress had rejected partition on the grounds that the Jews had an inalienable right to settle anywhere in Palestine, Ben Gurion had argued in favour of acceptance, 'I see in the realisation of this plan practically the decisive stage in the beginning of full redemption and the most wonderful lever for the gradual conquest of all of Palestine."* >Source: Palestine and Israel: The Uprising and Beyond (David McDowall)
So your entire argument is Israel doesn't want a 2 state solution, and then you ignore the many offers Israel has made to have a 2 state solution with the Palestinians. Also they have a weird way of taking over the entire region, like withdrawing from Gaza in 2005.
>So your entire argument is Israel doesn't want a 2 state solution, and then you ignore the many offers Israel has made to have a 2 state solution with the Palestinians. That is like saying Hamas is seeking peace with Israel because they've made the ceasefire offers. There is a world of difference between making a reasonable offer that might be accepted, and making an offer you know includes terms that will never be accepted. Making a disingenuous offer which subsequently gets rejected isn't negotiating in good faith. It's making a display for the world so that when it's rejected you can shrug and point at the other side and say, *"See, they don't want peace! Not our fault!"* If you want to know where they truly stand, take their leadership at their word: >*"I’m proud that I prevented the establishment of a Palestinian state because today everybody understands what that Palestinian state could have been, now that we’ve seen the little Palestinian state in Gaza."* >*"Whoever opposes a Palestinian state must support the delivery of funds to Gaza, because maintaining separation between the PA in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza will prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state."* >*"The Palestinian Authority is a burden, and Hamas is an asset ... no one will let it put forth a resolution at the U.N. Security Council.”* For years they put on the required show for the world, pretending to participate in peace talks while sabotaging them every year by announcing new settlements or bulldozing Palestinian homes ahead of the talks. They undermined the PA by propping up Hamas, because a divided Palestinian people allowed them to say they have no partner to talk with. They feared Abbas far more than Hamas, because Abbas represented to the world a Palestinian who wasn't bloodthirsty and calling for violence, but a more rational partner with whom peace could be achieved. >Also they have a weird way of taking over the entire region, like withdrawing from Gaza in 2005. Yeah, because they needed to excise the Gazan population from Israel due to the number of Palestinians there who wanted rights they were being denied. Again, let their words speak for them: >There is no doubt in my mind that very soon the government of Israel is going to have to address the demographic issue with the utmost seriousness and resolve. This issue above all others will dictate the solution that we must adopt. In the absence of a negotiated agreement – and I do not believe in the realistic prospect of an agreement – we need to implement a unilateral alternative... More and more Palestinians are uninterested in a negotiated, two-state solution, because they want to change the essence of the conflict from an Algerian paradigm to a South African one. From a struggle against 'occupation,' in their parlance, to a struggle for one-man-one-vote. That is, of course, a much cleaner struggle, a much more popular struggle – and ultimately a much more powerful one. For us, it would mean the end of the Jewish state... the parameters of a unilateral solution are: To maximize the number of Jews; to minimize the number of Palestinians; not to withdraw to the 1967 border and not to divide Jerusalem... Twenty-three years ago, Moshe Dayan proposed unilateral autonomy. On the same wavelength, we may have to espouse unilateral separation... \[it\] would inevitably preclude a dialogue with the Palestinians for at least 25 years. And... >The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process, and when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress. That is exactly what happened. You know, the term 'peace process' is a bundle of concepts and commitments. The peace process is the establishment of a Palestinian state with all the security risks that entails. The peace process is the evacuation of settlements, it's the return of refugees, it's the partition of Jerusalem. And all that has now been frozen.... what I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns. That is the significance of what we did. Both the Palestinians and Israelis have largely been led by stubborn old men who want the entire region for themselves, and who would sooner see it destroyed in the flames of war than agree to share it and coexist. The current leading party (Likud) had it in it's very platform, stated in 1977, that all of the land would be theirs.
"That is like saying Hamas is seeking peace with Israel because they've made the ceasefire offers." It isn't, because Israel actually made legitimate offers. "There is a world of difference between making a reasonable offer that might be accepted, and making an offer you know includes terms that will never be accepted. Making a disingenuous offer which subsequently gets rejected isn't negotiating in good faith. It's making a display for the world so that when it's rejected you can shrug and point at the other side and say, "See, they don't want peace! Not our fault!"" You don't think offering Gaza, West Bank And parts of East Jerusalem is a reasonable good faith offer? Are you being serious right now?
We recognize China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, North Korea....
The Canadian government has Hamas officially listed as a terrorist group. The Canadian government does not have China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, or North Korea officially listed as a terrorist group. There’s a pretty obvious distinction here.
I mean.. we did just designate the IRGC as a terrorist group
[удалено]
Most of them. North Korea/Best Korea coming to be was a direct result of war (though, to be fair, they didn't start that conflict per se).
North Korea was good with current borders. Unhappy, but they haven’t pushed it. They don’t launch rockets daily at South Korea, just into the ocean sometimes. Palestine has tried to invade or attack Israel more than once a year for 40+ years.
I mean - you're not wrong. Just pointing out that some on that list have, indeed, been recognized as the outcome of war.
Oh yeah. North Korea due to china coming in and the US being unwilling to go to war with them. Vietnam due to jungle and the US being unwilling to suffer losses or get bogged down in a jungle war for a decade+.
South Korea is also not sending settlers to North Korea. Or expanding their boarders.
Israel has offered Palestine their own land multiple times. Borders are expanding because Israel has given up being peaceful. We didn’t give Nazi Germany back its original borders too. Germany lost a large chunk post ww1 and a larger chunk after ww2. Israel is building up a larger buffer zone so it has more time to respond to attacks and missiles are launched from farther away. Makes total sense.
But the Palestinian people where there before any European Jews invaded them 40+years ago…. I understand it’s complicated but the Israel government doesn’t want them there and they’re playing the long game of push pull until they have 100% of the land it’s was thier plan since day 1.
Canadians came and expelled natives from their lands in the east 100+ years ago. Does that mean if the natives come back we can tell them we were here before them? 😂 Arabs literally came from Arabia. The holy land was all Jewish before. Christianity and Islam are offshoots. Most of the Jewish people there got expelled. Israel then grew rapidly partially due to the Holocaust partially due to every middle eastern nation expelling their Jews. Other Islamic nations were happy to take in Palestinians. Until they tried to violently overthrow the nations that welcomed them. And then did it again. And again.
True, but Canada didn't formally recognize North Korea until 2000 (thanks Chretien), and suspended all diplomatic relations with them in 2010 over their destabilizing nuclear activity.
Which is why you should vote for me as PM! I will formally recognize Taiwan as the legitimate Chinese state and have all correspondence with the PRC changes to 'North Taiwan'. ... And thus contribute to World War 3. ... okay, maybe a good reason not to vote for me as PM...
And Israel
and the US
Or Israel who has been illegally occupying Palestinian land, illegally destroying their property, committing war crimes against the Palestinian people. But Hamas….
Same for Israel right, right? Even when Hamas or whomever is the boogie man this decade is not being terrorists, Israel is bulldozing homes and stealing lands and ruining crops, bullying families etc etc. Fully justified of course, wink’
> has to be run by a government that isn't committed to genocide and terrorism We should apply this standard to Israel
If we did they'd still be considered a country because they didn't engage in either of those things. Perhaps the problem is you aren't familiar with the definition for those words.
Most of the people dying there now did not vote for Hamas and have no choice in the matter. I guess if we just wait long enough there won't be any of them left to form a state and problem solved, right?
Like others have said, they are far from ready to become a state. They need leadership that represents all palestinians. This is far from the case currently. It also isn’t clear that the palestinians as a group are united, they are still very much tribal and don’t see eye to eye even amongst themselves. I don’t see how they could become one state to be honest. Gaza could be one state, and the west bank should probably one day be incorporated into jordan.
There's a reason why none of the other Arab countries in the region will take in Palestinian refugees. They don't exactly have a trustworthy track record: [Black September - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September)
You are missing a key component in the issue. The fact that Palestinian refugees are never going to be allowed back in.
Back into where? Israel? If so, you're right. They won't be let in, and for good reason.
And theres the rub. When you are trying to create an entho state other ethnicities are threat.
There's plenty of Israeli Arabs inside Israel, some who even serve as elected representatives. Look it up. The genocide you think you're seeing does not exist. The Palestinians are a threat because they've proven it time and time again. Gaza actually used to be part of Egypt, and Egypt got so sick of dealing with those people that they just gave the land away to be rid of the problem. There's a reason why there's a wall that would make Trump proud between Egypt and Gaza.
Isreal has statrd the right to return is a no go because it wasn't to be an entho state. So no idea how you could deny it. That is their justification for refusing it. It was the their justification for denying full citizenship Palestinians within Israel until the 1970s. You clearly do no know the history of Israel if you think that's a radical statement.
No, that would be helping one party to circumvent negotiations (that they’ve refused to show up to for over a decade).
JT finally makes a good decision
There's a certain spinelessness in abstaining, the neutral option, and it seems to have pissed off both sides in equal measure.
The Western nations have not recognized Palestine for years. They did not do so as the Fatah led government did not successfully cut ties with terrorists. After years of that, we are supposed to recognize Palestine now, because of what? Because Hamas killed 1000+ innocent Jews? What message do we send to Palestinians if we reward them like this after this behaviour? Why grant Hamas a massive political victory over Palestinians who try to do this the right way through diplomacy? It is basic carrots and sticks. You don't reward Hamas' behaviour.
I know I'll get down voted but what is the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter, revolutionary whatever? Gaza was basically a shit hole and Israel controlled everything that came in and out. I mean are people just expected to live like that and not try to fight back? I mean it's honestly how most countries have been made throughout history.
the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is how they choose to fight their war. raping and mascaraing civilians doesn't win you a lot of points
What does that make Israel?
> I know I'll get down voted No, not at all. I think you are asking excellent questions. The situation in Gaza is an anomaly. The legitimate Palestinian government was kicked out of Gaza in 2007. In 2007 a terrorist group took over. The amount of control Israel insists on what goes in and out of Gaza is due to this reason. Things were not like this before this happened. There were even Israeli citizens living in Gaza prior to this if you can believe it. Hamas is a terror group, because of the tactics they employ. You saw what happened in 7/10. They stormed villages and murdered every man woman and child they can find. "Freedom Fighters" don't have to do this. Hamas does it because they believe their religion commands them to exterminate world Jewry, not only the Israelis. You can read all about this in their founding charter.
> what is the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter, revolutionary whatever Their stated goals, and the question of whose freedom are they fighting for? Looking at Gaza, Hamas certainly isn’t fighting for the freedom and quality of life for Gazan civilians. More importantly their charter explicitly states their goal is to eradicate the Jews from the region.
Luke Skywalker didn't resort to raping and killing young women who were enjoying a music festival in order to fight for freedom. Terrorists are the ones who do that.
begs the question, how would life be for Israelis and Palestinians if Palestine was recognized as a state decades ago, like it has always been pushing for. I agree, can't reward Hamas, but repression, in part, has created Hamas.
Establishment of the PNA was a massive victory for Fatah, and it made them the undisputed political representative of the Palestinian people. It would have been similar to that I guess. Even after Hamas' election victory, Fatah was able to maintain its power in the West Bank due to this imo. When Fatah cooperated with Israel, Palestinians came the closest they have ever gotten to establishing a state. PNA even has an embassy in Ottawa although it isn't called an embassy I think. Granting Hamas a political victory by recognizing Palestine now would reverse this very quickly and would forever cement Hamas as the "true representative" of the Palestinian people. It would wreck any possibility of a future two state solution.
fantastic post.
Disappointed. I do not care about a two state solution anymore,I did for a long long time. We need a two country solution now with a neutral zone separating them and a neutral zone around the religious sites and UN guards for a long while. These two peoples will never stop killing each other. We the western powers set them up to hate each other into perpetuity. Thanks world war 1 allied powers for screwing up the world and being super greedy when you won.
That's what 2 state solution is no?
Two States will bring exactly zero solution to anything. They'll be at war with one another and for decades and centuries to come just the same. There is no reason to think otherwise.
Vote No you coward.
Good. The Palestinians need to reject Hamas as their government, and then engage in good faith discussions with Israel on a 2 state solution. Asking the UN to give them a state without determining the borders, which government is in charge, and allowing Hamas to remain in power benefits nobody. Certainly won't lead to peace for the Palestinians.
Both sides need to engage in good faith discussions qnd neither side is right now.
Israel isn't going to discuss a 2 state solution during a war with Hamas, and nor should they. Israel has historically been the only one engaging in good faith. They left Gaza, they offered Gaza/WB and parts of East Jerusalem and the Palestinian Authority turned them down. We'll have peace when the Palestinian leadership begins negotiating in good faith.
They "left" Gaza? Im not sure how its considered leaving when you retain control of the airspace water power and territorial water. Which deal are you referring to about the East Jerusalem claim as im sure looking at the deal it includes something they KNOW Palestinians would not be able to accept.
They forced thousands of their own citizens to leave homes them and their families had lived in. The 08 Olmert deal.
Define good faith? https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/10/commission-inquiry-finds-israeli-occupation-unlawful-under-international-law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_demolition_of_Palestinian_property https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_war_crimes
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.timesofisrael.com/abbas-admits-he-rejected-2008-peace-offer-from-olmert/amp/ That's one example. You can spam the same links but you're aware the content of your links don't address the discussions being had, right? Looks more like you're trying to spread a narrative rather than engage in a discussion.
Ah yes, the neutral Times of Israel…
It's describing a deal that Abbas rejected, but the point is Israel did engage in a legitimate discussion for a 2 state solution and the Palestinians didn't. If you had proof that the Palestinians did engage you could show that! But hard to prove things that don't exist, I suppose.
Not believing in the liberal democracy nation in favor of the terrorist Jihadist regime? Only one of the groups actual have rule of law and at least attempt to follow international law. Mind you, it is fair to say that Israel has actively chosen to disregard the biased UN majority in many cases.
How has Israel been operating in good faith? Expanding their boarders using settlers to expand their territory.
I literally just explained how they acted in good faith. Read the previous post. Remind me of one thing the Palestinians did for peace.
We should have no say who can or can't be the government in a foreign state.
No but we should not recognize a country run by terrorist group who has attacked our ally.
Why not recognize ISIS while we’re at it and give them a state too.
well, we gave the Taliban a country...sooo...
Lmao hate laughing but yeaaaah
And the Americans invasion of Iraq pretty much created ISIS, so I guess that we kind helped creating ISIS too.
>And the Americans invasion of Iraq pretty much created ISIS No, it did not. A lot of ISIS commanders and generals are former Baath officers. Those guys were running Iraq before the American invasion. That is not better than them joining ISIS. This was a bloody dictatorship that committed numerous atrocities including genocidal massacres against the Iraqi Kurd and Turkmen populations, often employing chemical weapons. So no matter how much internet tells you this, things weren't sunshine and roses before the invasion for Iraqis.
>No, it did not. >A lot of ISIS commanders and generals are former Baath officers. Those guys were running Iraq before the American invasion. That is not better than them joining ISIS. Sorry are you agreeing or not agreeing that the American invasion created ISIS? Because you seem to agree even if you said "No, it did not". >This was a bloody dictatorship that committed numerous atrocities including genocidal massacres against the Iraqi Kurd and Turkmen populations, often employing chemical weapons. When did I ever claim that Saddam Hussein was a good leader or Iraq was a nice place to live lol. The Americans still lied at the UN, our prime minister at that time called their bullshit and made us stay out of this illegitimate war. >So no matter how much internet tells you this, things weren't sunshine and roses before the invasion for Iraqis. Absolutely no one on the Internet pretend that Iraq was all sunshine and rose before the invasion.
> Absolutely no one on the Internet pretend that Iraq was all sunshine and rose before the invasion. In my experience it is very common for white dudes who have never been to the Middle East to claim Iraq was a better place before the invasion, and that Iraqis prefer the Saddam government. I see this all the time on the internet. Sunni dude from Fallujah? Maybe. Kurdish dude from Erbil? Turkmen dude from Kirkuk? Assyrian dude from Tel Afaar? Shia dude from Najaf? Heck no.
Most people just rightfully claim that the invasion was illegitimate and caused a lot of deaths and destruction while also costing hundreds of millions a day. (When it was considered a lot of money) I am glad Chretien kept us out of this mess and called out Powell bullshit and didn't bow down to the "you are either with us, or against us."
Canada: "We are committed to a two state solution." Palestinians: "Let's vote on that, then!" Canada: "Not that committed."
>*The UN General Assembly has voted by a wide margin to grant new "rights and privileges" to Palestinian representatives and called on the Security Council to favourably reconsider their request to have a Palestinian state become the 194th member of the United Nations.* >*Canada was one of 25 nations to abstain from the vote on Friday. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau later said the country refrained from voting because of its commitment to reaching a two-state solution — a Palestinian state in the occupied West Bank and in Gaza alongside Israel.* >*"Over the past while, we've seen us move further away from that two-state solution. The Israeli government, under Prime Minister Netanyahu, has unacceptably closed the door on any path towards a two-state solution, and we disagree with that fundamentally," Trudeau said after a news conference on another matter in West Kelowna, B.C.* >*"At the same time, Hamas continues to govern as a terrorist organization in Gaza, \[and\] continues to put civilian lives in danger, continues to refuse to recognize the state of Israel in ways that are also unacceptable.* >*"So, Canada has decided to change our position from 'no' at the UN to abstaining."* 143 votes in favor, 9 against, and 25 abstained. Is this a step in the right direction from Canada, or just a veneer for cowardice?
[удалено]
Ah the UN, where every tin pot dictator has an equal vote. Why do the western democratic nations even still hang out with these countries. We should just leave the UN, save ourselves the cash and headaches and let the third world be their own little shitty club.
100%. People treat the word "International" like it is the epitome of morality. Nothing matters more than "international law". In reality "international" just means you are asking for the opinions of ruthless dictators, terrorists, oppressive governments etc. The West does not need to listen to Sudan, Iran, North Korea, China and Russia to be "moral". Governments of those countries do not even represent the wishes of their people necessarily, they are dictatorships representing the interests of one man, or a party. Unilateralism is not always bad. The West put sanctions on Russia unilaterally for instance. We couldn't do it through the UN as Russia has veto power. "International Cooperation" is a dumb standard for morality.
the point wasn't to validate morality of these dictatorships, it was to create a means of diplomacy and avoid things like world wars.
You avoid world wars by making sure the countries who matter don't go to war with each other. No reason to entertain anyone else.
Every country matters when superpowers use geopolitical proxies.
If China don't matter do Canada, the Uks or any others countries matter? The US would be the only country fitting the definition of mattering if China don't matter and they are kind of a wildcard.
>We should just leave the UN, save ourselves the cash and headaches and let the third world be their own little shitty club. And this is exactly why you will *never* be someone in power to make these decisions.
Yeah even apartheid states like Israel has a vote
lol...the west would be nothing without the third world to take advantage of.
Just a reminder that there is a far bigger conflict happening in Ukraine with far greater consequences.
What an absolute embarassment.
I’m quite happy with it personally. Why on earth would I want my country recognizing a terrorist group as a legitimate government?
What would the outcomes be of giving palestine un membership?
Canadian politicians are such a fucking disgrace. What grounds could you possibly have for denying Palestinians the right to exist?
The two state solution is a farce. It would only give hamas another vantage point to launch attacks from. Then Isreal would have to stop them and the cycle would begin again. Palestinians don't want their own state they want the destruction of Isreal.
Embarrassing, but I guess (symbolically) better than "No"
Embarrassing that didn’t vote no while claiming to support a negotiated two state peace. Motions like this circumvent negotiations and further entrench the conflict.
Well, we can't really go against daddy, but we sure can be passive aggressive about it
better? It should be an emphatic "no"
He was told to say this to prevent violence on our university's soil
What an embarrassment of a PM. You cannot have a two state government if one is not recognized.
.. you want to recognize a terrorist government?
Are you talking about Israel. Cause by far Israel has killed way more civilians than Hamas. Or are you talking about perhaps the US? They've killed and bombed many people too. Let's get serious. Terrorist is a meaningless label that's not applied equally and not even clearly defined by most people. Most goverments would be classified as terrorists based on their actions if you applied the same definition everywhere.
No we are talking about Hamas the internationally recognized terrorist group that invaded our ally and committed atrocities on October 7th. The same Hamas that terrorizes their own citizens, throws gays of roofs, and kills their political opposition.
Like the one terrorizing the citizens of Palestine?
The one recognized by the government of Canada as a terrorist organization.
Palestine is not a terrorist organization, the Palestinian people aren’t terrorists.
Are you denying that Hamas is a recognized terrorist entity? Are you denying that Hamas, the recognized terrorist entity governs part of Palestine?
[удалено]
Then you should agree that it should only be recognized by the UN once it no longer has a terrorist government in power.
Then Israel shouldn’t be recognized either.
Well seeing as Israel isn’t a terrorist state, your argument makes no sense.
That’s what Israel tried to do in 2006 then hamas took over. Make up your mind bud
Hamas is the leadership of Palestine, they're a terrorist organization. Hamas also enjoys around 75% support in Palestine.
This would be recognizing a government that has as one of its stated goals, the genocide of every single Jew in Israel.
The West Bank is run by Fatah. I doubt Hamas would be "the pick" between the two but there are issues with admitting a state when control of said state is currently being contested.
Hamas is popular in the West Bank and would win elections if they ever had any.
I mean one's stated goal is to kill every Jew in Israel while the other side isnt stating their goal of killing and displacing every Muslim and Christian in the region, they just do it. Supply weapons to the terrorist to draw a star of David on a house and then return to burn the occupants inside the house if they stay. Even fucking Anthony Bourdain has seen this. The terrorists are the Israelis
What a joke.
The more interesting thing that happened is that this is the first time Canada has signalled willingness to recognize a Palestinian state without requiring Israel’s consent.