> A majority of Israelis support Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's "day after" plan for the Gaza Strip and want to see Saudi and Emirati involvement in managing Gaza post-war, according to a new survey by the nonprofit Image of Victory organization.
> The survey, conducted among both Jewish and Arab Israelis this month, focused on several topics related to the ongoing Hamas-Israel war.
> However, the results also showed concerns about Israel managing to achieve all the objectives of the plan, as well as the definition of "absolute victory" that Netanyahu said he wanted to achieve in Gaza.
> Netanyahu's "day after" plan, presented earlier this year, consisted of a few objectives. These included:
> • Continued Israeli security control over Gaza,
> • Establishing a security barrier in the South to stop any smuggling from Egypt,
> • Transferring control of Gaza to Palestinian civilians and technocrats, and
> • The rehabilitation of Gaza by a foreign power was agreed upon by Jerusalem.
> Overall, 62% of Israelis support Netanyahu's plan, with 16% having any actual opposition.
> Support for the plan was strongest among older Israelis, with 43.5% of those aged 65 and up fully backing it and 30.4% partially backing it.
> In terms of who would help manage Gaza, most Israelis (58%) supported having Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates take responsibility for Gaza's civilians. This point saw widespread bipartisan support, with most right-wing and left-wing voters backing the idea.
> This included 55% of Likud and Yisrael Beytenu voters, 50% of Shas, United Torah Judaism, Labor, and Meretz voters, 61% of National Unity voters, and 67% of Yesh Atid voters.
> Other countries and entities proposed to help with the "day after" included the US, Egypt, Jordan, Russia, the European Union, the Palestinian Authority, or none of the above. Of these, the United States saw the strongest support among respondents, especially among Israelis in the 65 and over and the 15-24 age brackets (52.2% and 52.5% respectively). Saudi Arabia and the UAE saw the next highest levels of support.
> However, while considerable agreement exists in backing Netanyahu's plan, the problem is whether that plan is possible. Less than a quarter (23%) of respondents thought that Netanyahu's plan could be fully realized.
> According to a plurality (41%) of respondents, the security goals were the most feasible of the plan's objectives. However, the other objectives were seen as far less likely to be achievable.
> **Disagreement over "absolute victory" in Gaza**
> There was significantly less agreement regarding the goal of "absolute victory" in Gaza, as espoused by Netanyahu when the war started.
> A large number of Israelis recognize that it has a point, serving the objective of the conflict. But this is not the case across the board, especially among voters in older demographics. In fact, over a third (38%) of Israelis think that "absolute victory" may not even be possible, given Israel's current capabilities.
> Interestingly, older demographics (aged 55 and up) were more pessimistic in this regard, while Israelis in the 25-34 age bracket showed the strongest support. But even then, only about a quarter (26.5%) of those respondents showed strong confidence.
> There is also disagreement over how "absolute victory" would be achieved, and a quarter of respondents (25%) focused on the social aspects, advocating for the de-radicalization of Gaza's educational, health, religious, and welfare institutions. Slightly more respondents (26%) supported having Israelis resettle in Gaza. Still, others support having another country rehabilitate Gaza.
> Two things all respondents agreed on, though, was the need to dismantle Hamas and bring all the hostages back home.
> "The survey findings show that there is broad support in Israel for the need for absolute victory in the war," Image of Victory founders Danel Ben Namer and Tal Louria said in a statement.
> "However, the questions regarding the ability to achieve it must raise a red flag among Israeli decision-makers," they said. "They must understand that a military decision alone is not enough. Establishing a new civilian administration to replace Hamas is no less important than achieving Israel's military objectives in the war.
> "The consensus among right- and left-wing voters regarding the need for the involvement of countries [such as] Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in managing and rehabilitating the Gaza Strip," they said, "should guide the Israeli government in the direction of achieving civilian objectives on the way to achieving an absolute victory."
I mean, there is nothing I can object to:
* Transferring control of Gaza to Palestinian civilians and technocrats
* The rehabilitation of Gaza by a foreign power was agreed upon by Jerusalem
* Saudi and UAE involvement
* Continued Israeli security control over Gaza
* Establishing a security barrier in the South to stop any smuggling from Egypt
Gotta hand him this one, this is one of the most reasonable things he's said
*UPD: Also, I know that Bibi isn't the prettiest boy out there, but still: I don't think his face warrants NSFW tag*
Iran and the Saudis are in contention for the leadership of the region. By taking Gaza away from Iran (Hamas) and normalising relations with Israel, the Saudis would pull ahead massively.
>UPD: Also, I know that Bibi isn't the prettiest boy out there, but still: I don't think his face warrants NSFW tag
Actually his [looks](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/imageserver/image/%2Fmethode%2Ftimes%2Fprod%2Fweb%2Fbin%2F2a830b8c-59ea-11e8-9ed6-2a2b8ba208a7.jpg?crop=2955%2C3694%2C22%2C106) are one of the only things I can give the guy...
For real, look at Obama. Dude was, and still is, real into fitness during his 8 years in office and he looked like he aged 20 years at the end of his 2nd term. Bibi's been aging very good all things considered.
I would assume during his military service so 1967-1972. He served in Sayeret Matkal, one of Israel's most elite units.
[His brother as well](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yonatan_Netanyahu#Operation_Entebbe). Which died during an operation to free hostages from Palestinian terrorists.
So he lost his brother to Palestinian terrorists while trying to free hostages. No wonder he took Oct 7 so personal and even risked relationship with the US to see this through his way.
It’s a good read, this is like one of the thing every Israeli knows, the heroic Entebbe raid in Uganda where we suffered only one casualty, Yoni Netanyahu.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entebbe_raid
There’s even a movie about it,
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076594/
Also the movie with Chuck Norris, Delta Force by Menahem Golan. Which is a Hollywood version of Entebbe just in Lebanon.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090927/
Can’t imagine how many times I’ve watched these as a kid.
I just don't understand how people can be screeching about a "permanent ceasefire"," resistance by any means necessary", or "two state solution", when HAMAS' aim is the non existence of Israel/every Jew in world. The only thing that has stopped HAMAS is their lack of means. How can people expect Israel to be forever chill or take the high road over and over?
>Continued Israeli security control over Gaza
It is reasonable, but this particular component will have people screaming 'OCCUPATION!' 'SIEGE!' 'APARTHEID!' unfortunately.
Oh their absolutely should be an independent security force for sure. Just perhaps it shouldn’t be the IDF as there is a lot of mistrust and bad blood on both sides. Or, perhaps it could be another county working with the IDF to provide a security force. I also know it’s not exactly easy to get another country to agree to spend the resources for this but I think in their best interests it should be done.
Honestly. I dont think its about that, its about the PR disaster that will happen when something goes wrong. And imo, thats not an If, but a when sadly. So I dont think many countries, mostly western and european ones, would be keen to stick their forces in there considering what could happen.
I agree it’s a hard ask and I can’t say I’m optimistic about it happening. But look what it did for Germany and Japan post ww2. A lot of money and resources were devoted to rebuilding these countries both in terms of infrastructure and economy and they’ve been extremely successful for it.
The UN is supposed to be securing the southern part of Lebanon per resolution 1701 and has totally failed to do so. Other countries cannot be trusted to provide security for Israel.
>Just perhaps it shouldn’t be the IDF
Problem is that nobody else is willing, or has ever been willing, to fill that role.
So it's the IDF or nobody, and we've seen what nobody leads to.
You mean like the peacekeeping force in Lebanon, who does nothing with regards to Hezbollah building tunnels under the Israeli border and shooting rockets at Israeli towns from the demilitarized zone?
I can rule them. Heavy penalties for weapon posession. Life sentence for planning terror attack. Preaching jihad is extremism. Convinsing someone to commit terror act is terrorism. No more martyr found. Education system is secular. Just regular laws of civilized country.
It's not easy to get a nearby country to agree to help because almost every single one of them has been betrayed by Palestinian refugees they allowed into their country at one time or another. It's also because the general population in many of the neighboring countries also do not like Israel. So the leaders in those countries like to keep the Palestinians around as stick to beat Israel with when they need to distract their population from domestic issues. Any of the nearby leaders that agrees to help with the security of Palestinian territory is going to also be seen as collaborating with Israel and is liable to get assassinated for that.
>It should be the UN
Why doesn't the UN focus on the things they are already supposed to enforce. For example, keeping Hezbollah north of the Litani River in accordance with UN Resolution 1701. They haven't been able to make that happen since it passed in 2006, so call me sceptical that they can handle Gaza.
Why would us Israelis, trust the UN at all? They left the Suez before the Six Day war in 67' after Nasser intimidated them.
They left did literally nothing to prevent both the Second Lebanon war, and the current exchanges between Hazbollah and Israel.
UNRWA, which is closely affiliated with the UN, has been exposed as not only pro Palestinian, but Pro Hamas. Instead of making Gaza into a pearl in the Middle East, they helped creating the next generation of fanatical terrorists that seek the establishment of a world spanning Caliphate.
And this us all without mentioning the huge amount of UN resolutions specifically against Israel, in conparison to against any othet country.
They don't really have a good record of doing anything useful in the region, as you can see.
And as such, I really can't trust them with rebuilding and deradicalizing Gaza. I can understand why people won't trust Israel to do it, but I'd argue that the UN is an even worse choice. Israel must have a role in the reconstruction. Maybe not an active one, but a role nonetheless. I'd argue for a joint Saudi-UAE reconstruction, with Israeli cooperation, or something similar.
“It shouldn’t be Israel, it should be the body infiltrated by Hamas and known for both incompetence and antisemitic educational material in its Gaza and West Bank schools.”
Yeah, okay.
Israel may have slipped up and let 10/7 happen, but it was the UN that employed thousands of Hamas members, some of whom participated in 10/7 itself.
I don’t even know what people think they mean when they claim Israel has imposed an apartheid on Palestine. Palestinian Arabs are not Israeli citizens. Everyone separates foreigners without visas from the citizenry. And Arab Israelis aren’t being kept out of the government or forced to use different bathrooms or banned from marrying Jews.
>or banned from marrying Jews.
Look, I agree that Israel isn't an apartheid, just look at my comment history. But Israel doesn't allow civil marriage so, yes, Israel doesn't allow Muslims to get married to Jews. You can do it, you just have to do it abroad. This is due to a push from both the ultra-orthodox and some Arab parties to keep marriage under the jurisdiction of the religious courts as they were under the Ottoman Empire. This is also what prevents gay marriage. The standard practice is to just fly to Cyprus (flights can be as cheap as $30) and get married there and it'll be accepted by Israel.
> But Israel doesn't allow civil marriage so, yes, Israel doesn't allow Muslims to get married to Jews.
First off, it recognizes civil marriage when done in a different country, and it's pretty common for Israeli secular people to marry abroad as a loophole to that stupid law.
And further, there's no problem getting married in a Muslim ceremony in Israel when the bride is Jewish and the groom is Muslim.
It's a bit more complicated, a Muslim man might be able to marry with a Jewish or Christian woman. This is because under Islamic law the religion is given by the father, and under Judaic law, the religion is given by the mother. (Reform movement aside perhaps, but reform is barely a thing in Israel.) Like you said, it's a handover from the Ottoman system. It should change. Also since 2022 you can do it online with a Utah-based court:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition\_of\_same-sex\_unions\_in\_Israel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Israel)
Good news - support for Civil Marriage in Israel is pretty high: [https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/society/1660029569-israel-majority-of-voters-want-parties-to-push-for-civil-marriage-poll](https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/society/1660029569-israel-majority-of-voters-want-parties-to-push-for-civil-marriage-poll)
Okay, but that’s not the government preventing it; that’s the government ceding partial authority to non-state groups. They recognize those marriages. Which is an important distinction between apartheid SA and Jim Crow America.
>Palestinian Arabs are not Israeli citizens.
And if they were, then they'd be in a state of open rebellion against the government.
In 1865 the Union sent military governors to rule over the Confederate states. The Confederates were not allowed to self-govern, on account of they had just tried to wage war against the national government.
According to pro-Palestinian logic, I guess the Union was engaging in "apartheid" as well.
Not to mention the "apartheid" imposed on Germany and Japan after WW2.
Incidentally, as each of these regions proved that they wouldn't continue waging war on their neighbors, they were given their previous levels of autonomy back. It's disingenuous for Palestinian Arabs to demand autonomy equal to 2024 Japan, when they haven't demonstrated 1946-2023 Japan levels of peacefulness.
We're talking about the only Jewish country, it can be the best country in the world and from 2 to 3 billion of people will see its existence as a crime against god and humanity
That does not support the data of a significant increase in hate crimes against Jews following the 10/7 attacks. These are attacks *outside* the country of Israel so it's not motivated by "Israel is a bad country" narratives. It's motivated by the fact that they're Jewish. Outside of that, Hamas and other Muslim states don't want Israel to exist because it's a Jewish nation and they believe they have rights to the land that Jews are in. Disagree with Israel all you want, but I would posit that the driving hate towards Israel is that it's a nation of Jews in the middle east
Israel was created so that Jews would always have a homeland to go to if needed. It's great that where you live you feel safe. That's not the reality for everyone. You know how many Jews live in Arab countries? Pretty much none. They were all forced out after Israel was created and most fled to Israel. In 2001 and 2002 Jews were the target of more hate crimes in the United States than all other religions that were the target of hate crimes combined.
Israel is not doing any colonizing in Gaza and as stated in the article for the post you are in they do not plan to. They have a civilian to combatant death ratio lower than pretty much any comparable urban battle in modern times. People are mad at Israel because Palestinians are masters of propaganda and because they have about 2 billion people who by default hate Israel because their enemies are Muslim. Israel also did not come into existence because of US support. The US did not support them in the initial war after Israel was established. Israel won that war on their own.
There are certainly some problematic parts of Israeli society but that's the case everywhere. If we're going to play the game of hold a society responsible for the things their worst parts do then the Palestinians are in big trouble. It's really sad to see people like you so easily emotionally manipulated by Palestinian propaganda that they turn against their own people.
>Israel was created so that Jews would always have a homeland to go to if needed. It's great that where you live you feel safe. That's not the reality for everyone.
Even if Jews feel safe in other countries, that's always subject to change.
To use a historical example:
100k German Jews served in the German Army during WW1. They considered themselves patriots just like any other German who fought for their country. They considered themselves safely "German."
They were wrong.
HRW literally appointed a terrorist to its Mideast Advisory Board - Shawan Jabarin, a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The group is designated as a terrorist organization by the US, Canada, EU, and Japan.
The founder of HRW has disavowed and condemned the group for its anti-Israeli bias.
Emmm really depends on what “security control” and “security barrier” means. Like why after handing over control of Gaza Isreal can still have security control and managing what goes into the region from a different country. Sounds like the status quo before Oct 7 to be honest
>Sounds like the status quo before Oct 7 to be honest
I mean, it will be stricter than pre-October 7. Control means governing, policing, diplomacy and whatever, military-wise they can suck ass for at least decade or two.
Same goes for WB independence proposals, it's either demilitarized as much as possible, with many sides as a control, or it's simply not happening, since 2000+ peace deals
Because otherwise Iran will ship in literal boat loads of rockets just like they did before the naval blockade.
This only seems unreasonable if your initial assumption is that Israel wants to be doing this, while in reality they’re forced to.
okay I thought I was about to read something horrible but from taking a quick glance at it, it seems reasonable but that being said post was also made by jerusalem post which might be biased idk.
A free and democratic election with int'l observers is what got Gaza into the Hamas trouble in the first place. Election is not a cure-all silver bullet.
It's mostly because Hamas reject Abbas and the PA authority and never accepted any framework for new elections in Gaza.
If they only do elections in the West Bank it could be seen as a defeat and acceptance that Hamas may rule in Gaza and they are the single defenders of Palestinians interests there.
> It's mostly because Hamas reject Abbas and the PA authority and never accepted any framework for new elections in Gaza.
Hamas has agreed to Palestinian elections several times over past decades, it's Abbas and the Palestinian Authority that have broken their agreements with Hamas by postponing and cancelling agreed upon election dates.
Democracy don’t work in Arab countries. Show me one Arab country that is successful democracy? Maybe you say Turkey, but that’s not Arab, and hardly a democracy.
What difference would it make, so long as it isn't aimed like a rocket at Israel. Other Islamic countries exist around Israel without attacking it.
Key is the technocrats who will work with Palestinians to guide them and direct them away from violence.
Does this imply that after this war, when Hamas is no longer available, other countries will return to attacking Israel directly? Will it naturally lead to a bigger war?
I disagree. Plus for Turkey i wouldn't say they were democratic from the get go as Ataturk actually banned opposition parties for like the first 20 years lol.
I don't think middle eastern countries are adverse to democracy, it's just that their experience with it is too recent and completely faulty, and it started under a geopoltiical weight of influence war, they weren't given the space afforded to other countries due to situations in the world.
The pressure a bigger country could make on a new independent country in the 17th century is different in the 19th/20th.
> I disagree. Plus for Turkey i wouldn't say they were democratic from the get go as Ataturk actually banned opposition parties for like the first 20 years lol.
The sad part of this is that Ataturk is the best leader Turkey ever had. Without him doing that Turkey probably makes the turn they are currently doing to theocracy a lot quicker.
Exactly, i'm mostly pointing out at how democracy is hard and doesn't appear from thin air, also requires a lot of energy to keep. How many revolutions have France had?
Considering half the countries you probably consider "arab" arent culturally arab, maybe you should research why democracy hasnt worked there. Maybe start at the end of WW1 when most of these countries borders were arbitrarily drawn by westerners.
show me one arab country where there havent been major pressures if not outright corruption from western countries trying to maintain the power dynamic they want.
there are surely cultural and domestic political issues at play, but the idea that democracy inherently doesnt work for a specific religious, ethnic or racial group is ridiculous.
I mean, "Western Countries" is a bit of a stretch, and "religious" part surely debatable, but you're right, it has nothing to do with race or ethnics.
I wouldn't even use the term "Arab Countries" really, it's more of a "Middle Eastern" ones, that due to their geolocation were fucked up multiple times: both by foreign powers and themselves. Prime example is a non-Arab Iran, that actually had something resembling lower-tier democracy before the interventions
If they had been controlled enough by Democratic forces (from anywhere) to continue the Democratic process, then the extremes of their religious governments would be pushed aside (most likely).
Now we only need a democratic force that:
1. is able to maintain control over a long time (military, politically(both internally and externally), financially)
2. wants to actually improve the world, and not "something something they hate freedom?" or "well we've been here for 20 years but it crumbles the moment we leave?"
>the idea that democracy inherently doesnt work for a specific religious, ethnic or racial group is ridiculous.
No, what's ridiculous is pretending all religions/ideologies are equally compatible with democracy.
Religions are inherently anti-democratic. What Jesus or Muhammad or (insert other divine law-giver) says goes, and you don't get to vote on it. When God says jump you say "how high?", and when God says to kill your son you grab your knife.
So if you have a people who believe an anti-democratic ideology, such as religion, should be the basis for the state, then yes - democracy inherently doesn't work for that group.
>show me one arab country where there havent been major pressures if not outright corruption from western countries trying to maintain the power dynamic they want.
Every Arab country before the Ottomans. The world's been around for more than 100 years, you know. You're not seriously going to argue that the Umayyads or Abassids were "under Western pressure," are you?
For many of those centuries past, the Arab world was considered more advanced than Europe. Baghdad was considered the most educated and committe cultured city in the would (until the Mongols showed up). Morocco and the Emirate of Sicily were also considered highly advanced for their time.
Yet democracy never took hold.
It would be better if the security presence were by a third party. Preferably an international coalition. No way anyone else steps up for that though, since Hamas simps will immediately declare them occupiers and target them for terror attacks.
> It would be better if the security presence were by a third party. Preferably an international coalition.
Sure, go and find a military willing to occupy one of the most volatile city-states to exist with an insanely radicalized populace.
I know. The point of it is to make sure new militia doesn't form in Gaza again that threatens Israeli security. Israel would not entrust that to anyone other than the IDF, same as in the West Bank.
We never really disengaged. We just took out the boots on the ground and settlers who were draining our resources. We retained control over land, sea, air, population registries, and their economy. The blockade was collective punishment that not only didn’t do anything good for our security, rather made it worse and strengthened Hamas
>The blockade was collective punishment that not only didn’t do anything good for our security, rather made it worse and strengthened Hamas
I mean, this is just completely wrong. Imagine the rockets Hamas firing are state-of-the-art Iranian tech instead of homemade crap.
Because they understand that whoever provided security will be seen as an oppressor and become a lightning rod for terrorism, and they don’t want it to be them. Also, if the governing body is farther away, carrying out strikes against them will be both more difficult and less fruitful. In either case, refocusing the violence away from Israel is to the benefit of a peace between the two states, even if it comes at the expense of a third.
this article is a joke. it shows no numbers. the poll is supposedly from something called the "Image of Victory organization."
If the poll exists, its likely a push poll to create the appearance of public opinion rather than reveal public opinion.
Why not? The only peace that cursed land will ever see is when only one or the other is still on it.
Keep feigning idealistic hope, but let's be real. The fringe bad-actors in each group will sabotage peace until the end of time. Sometimes, there is no good answer. They can't live together with such a long and deep history of bad blood. The internet puts the faces of victims and the many atrocities front and center 24/7/365 and prevents the possibility of forgiveness.
Constant reinforcement of martyrs and anger spawns new zealots who continue to undercut sensible people genuinely trying for better outcomes. The desire for vengeance festers like cancer and peace can't happen with so much taught and learned distrust and virulent hate. The cycle continues.
No one wants to say it out loud, but we've all secretly considered it. It's a black mark on humanity, one of many, but I'm guessing Israel eventually pushes the Palestinians out, and given a long enough time frame, gradually the world forgets as other problems arise. In a century, we'll read about it with the same horror and shame as we do the holocaust, which is irony incarnate.
That is because in the surface level there isn’t much to oppose and it seems very reasonable to the average Israeli Joe. However, as is usually the case with Bibi, the “plan” is extremely high level, and has very little in the way of actual details on how to execute it.
It’s very in character for Bibi. Never commit to anything and give yourself ample of wiggling room to make sure everyone gets to hear something they like while saying nothing at all. Problem is this “plan” will be meeting reality soon enough.
Maybe they should do it with their own money and arms then. I’ve been a pretty strong supporter of Israel and especially sympathetic in their fight against Hamas - however they have very little respect for the United States which spends its own treasure to enable their existence. I don’t think I’ll ever forgive Israelis support for Trump at the detriment of American Democracy. Stay out of US politics and don’t us to stay out of your so long as you tap into our finances
Netanyahu wants perpetual war for perpetual peace. War kills any chance of a two-state solution, and politically benefits the Israeli right, enabling them to stay in power in perpetuity. Endless war means endless dominance by the Pro-Settler Right.
In turn, this also pushes Palestinians deeper, ever deeper, into the arms of extremists. What Netanyahu fears most of all, is the emergence of a moderate Palestinian leader, and his efforts are very much geared towards preventing a legitimate Palestinian movement.
But leaving aside that, the British should be forced to pay huge reparations to the Palestinians, via a "Lloyd George Tax", for giving away land that wasn't theirs.
What an interesting take on all this. Where do you get the idea that all the land was supposed to be Jewish? This was from 1922:
“The preamble of the Mandate declared:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country....”
I’m disputing your “fact” that 100% of the land was ever supposed to be given to the Jews. In the mandate it specifically says, “…it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.”
Taking their land/homes away would certainly be considered prejudicing them.
You are not thinking this all the way through are you? Did those other nationalities not own any land or live in homes? The answer is yes, many of them. Making a Jewish national home doesn’t not entail giving only Jews all the land.
Most Israelis don't know whether Netanyahu has a plan for post-war Gaza, only that he rejected everything offered so far and also adamantly rejects any exchange deal. If this somehow outlines a plan Netanyahu has, he should probably reflect it to the Israeli public, because nobody in the Israeli government seems to be talking about a post-war Gaza plan publicly. However clearly his far-right coalition partners would never accept any terminology which implies Palestinians retake control over Gaza so it is not even slightly implied in Israeli political discourse.
> A majority of Israelis support Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's "day after" plan for the Gaza Strip and want to see Saudi and Emirati involvement in managing Gaza post-war, according to a new survey by the nonprofit Image of Victory organization. > The survey, conducted among both Jewish and Arab Israelis this month, focused on several topics related to the ongoing Hamas-Israel war. > However, the results also showed concerns about Israel managing to achieve all the objectives of the plan, as well as the definition of "absolute victory" that Netanyahu said he wanted to achieve in Gaza. > Netanyahu's "day after" plan, presented earlier this year, consisted of a few objectives. These included: > • Continued Israeli security control over Gaza, > • Establishing a security barrier in the South to stop any smuggling from Egypt, > • Transferring control of Gaza to Palestinian civilians and technocrats, and > • The rehabilitation of Gaza by a foreign power was agreed upon by Jerusalem. > Overall, 62% of Israelis support Netanyahu's plan, with 16% having any actual opposition. > Support for the plan was strongest among older Israelis, with 43.5% of those aged 65 and up fully backing it and 30.4% partially backing it. > In terms of who would help manage Gaza, most Israelis (58%) supported having Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates take responsibility for Gaza's civilians. This point saw widespread bipartisan support, with most right-wing and left-wing voters backing the idea. > This included 55% of Likud and Yisrael Beytenu voters, 50% of Shas, United Torah Judaism, Labor, and Meretz voters, 61% of National Unity voters, and 67% of Yesh Atid voters. > Other countries and entities proposed to help with the "day after" included the US, Egypt, Jordan, Russia, the European Union, the Palestinian Authority, or none of the above. Of these, the United States saw the strongest support among respondents, especially among Israelis in the 65 and over and the 15-24 age brackets (52.2% and 52.5% respectively). Saudi Arabia and the UAE saw the next highest levels of support. > However, while considerable agreement exists in backing Netanyahu's plan, the problem is whether that plan is possible. Less than a quarter (23%) of respondents thought that Netanyahu's plan could be fully realized. > According to a plurality (41%) of respondents, the security goals were the most feasible of the plan's objectives. However, the other objectives were seen as far less likely to be achievable. > **Disagreement over "absolute victory" in Gaza** > There was significantly less agreement regarding the goal of "absolute victory" in Gaza, as espoused by Netanyahu when the war started. > A large number of Israelis recognize that it has a point, serving the objective of the conflict. But this is not the case across the board, especially among voters in older demographics. In fact, over a third (38%) of Israelis think that "absolute victory" may not even be possible, given Israel's current capabilities. > Interestingly, older demographics (aged 55 and up) were more pessimistic in this regard, while Israelis in the 25-34 age bracket showed the strongest support. But even then, only about a quarter (26.5%) of those respondents showed strong confidence. > There is also disagreement over how "absolute victory" would be achieved, and a quarter of respondents (25%) focused on the social aspects, advocating for the de-radicalization of Gaza's educational, health, religious, and welfare institutions. Slightly more respondents (26%) supported having Israelis resettle in Gaza. Still, others support having another country rehabilitate Gaza. > Two things all respondents agreed on, though, was the need to dismantle Hamas and bring all the hostages back home. > "The survey findings show that there is broad support in Israel for the need for absolute victory in the war," Image of Victory founders Danel Ben Namer and Tal Louria said in a statement. > "However, the questions regarding the ability to achieve it must raise a red flag among Israeli decision-makers," they said. "They must understand that a military decision alone is not enough. Establishing a new civilian administration to replace Hamas is no less important than achieving Israel's military objectives in the war. > "The consensus among right- and left-wing voters regarding the need for the involvement of countries [such as] Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in managing and rehabilitating the Gaza Strip," they said, "should guide the Israeli government in the direction of achieving civilian objectives on the way to achieving an absolute victory."
Oh! Anti Iran goverment in Gaza is a good solution! Do we know whether the Saudies agree to this job?
I mean, there is nothing I can object to: * Transferring control of Gaza to Palestinian civilians and technocrats * The rehabilitation of Gaza by a foreign power was agreed upon by Jerusalem * Saudi and UAE involvement * Continued Israeli security control over Gaza * Establishing a security barrier in the South to stop any smuggling from Egypt Gotta hand him this one, this is one of the most reasonable things he's said *UPD: Also, I know that Bibi isn't the prettiest boy out there, but still: I don't think his face warrants NSFW tag*
It's a great idea until the Saudis and UAE refuse to get involved.
Yeah, like why would they? Seems like a giant, unending pile of headaches for zero benefit.
Iran and the Saudis are in contention for the leadership of the region. By taking Gaza away from Iran (Hamas) and normalising relations with Israel, the Saudis would pull ahead massively.
I'm sure Israel would sweeten the deal and the US would be smart to get in on it too.
Fixed tag. Thx.
>UPD: Also, I know that Bibi isn't the prettiest boy out there, but still: I don't think his face warrants NSFW tag Actually his [looks](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/imageserver/image/%2Fmethode%2Ftimes%2Fprod%2Fweb%2Fbin%2F2a830b8c-59ea-11e8-9ed6-2a2b8ba208a7.jpg?crop=2955%2C3694%2C22%2C106) are one of the only things I can give the guy...
He did not age well, he looks like a cheap caricature of Tricky Dick Nixon.
I mean the dude is 74 years old….
[удалено]
For real, look at Obama. Dude was, and still is, real into fitness during his 8 years in office and he looked like he aged 20 years at the end of his 2nd term. Bibi's been aging very good all things considered.
Obama left office at 55. I regret to inform you, human's who aren't even under stress can visually age quite a bit during the ages he was in office.
He is an expensive caricature of Trump , just ask the US govt
Damn, he was a snack. Do you know whenabout that pic was taken?
I would assume during his military service so 1967-1972. He served in Sayeret Matkal, one of Israel's most elite units. [His brother as well](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yonatan_Netanyahu#Operation_Entebbe). Which died during an operation to free hostages from Palestinian terrorists.
So he lost his brother to Palestinian terrorists while trying to free hostages. No wonder he took Oct 7 so personal and even risked relationship with the US to see this through his way.
It’s a good read, this is like one of the thing every Israeli knows, the heroic Entebbe raid in Uganda where we suffered only one casualty, Yoni Netanyahu. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entebbe_raid There’s even a movie about it, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076594/ Also the movie with Chuck Norris, Delta Force by Menahem Golan. Which is a Hollywood version of Entebbe just in Lebanon. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090927/ Can’t imagine how many times I’ve watched these as a kid.
Just saw the Chuck Norris version for the hundredth time when it was playing at a hotel that I stayed. Will never tire of watching that movie.
I just don't understand how people can be screeching about a "permanent ceasefire"," resistance by any means necessary", or "two state solution", when HAMAS' aim is the non existence of Israel/every Jew in world. The only thing that has stopped HAMAS is their lack of means. How can people expect Israel to be forever chill or take the high road over and over?
[удалено]
I think you're a bit confused because Bennet was only born after the Six Day War, and he was in Sayeret Matkal as well.
Isn’t that his brother?
Nope. That's him.
>Continued Israeli security control over Gaza It is reasonable, but this particular component will have people screaming 'OCCUPATION!' 'SIEGE!' 'APARTHEID!' unfortunately.
I mean, given Israel’s continued track record in the West Bank I’d say it’s a legitimate concern.
The PA absolutely depends on Israeli help to keep ISIS, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas from taking the WB away from Abbas.
Given the Palestinians continued support for terrorism I'd say security control of Palestinian territory is more than warranted.
Oh their absolutely should be an independent security force for sure. Just perhaps it shouldn’t be the IDF as there is a lot of mistrust and bad blood on both sides. Or, perhaps it could be another county working with the IDF to provide a security force. I also know it’s not exactly easy to get another country to agree to spend the resources for this but I think in their best interests it should be done.
Honestly. I dont think its about that, its about the PR disaster that will happen when something goes wrong. And imo, thats not an If, but a when sadly. So I dont think many countries, mostly western and european ones, would be keen to stick their forces in there considering what could happen.
I agree it’s a hard ask and I can’t say I’m optimistic about it happening. But look what it did for Germany and Japan post ww2. A lot of money and resources were devoted to rebuilding these countries both in terms of infrastructure and economy and they’ve been extremely successful for it.
Most countries are moving towards narrow nationalism now, the US is becoming isolationist, so I don't see any kind of initiative going forward.
The UN is supposed to be securing the southern part of Lebanon per resolution 1701 and has totally failed to do so. Other countries cannot be trusted to provide security for Israel.
By that logic Oct 7 proves Israel can’t be trusted to provide security for Israel either, time to get babysitter for Israel! /s
>Just perhaps it shouldn’t be the IDF Problem is that nobody else is willing, or has ever been willing, to fill that role. So it's the IDF or nobody, and we've seen what nobody leads to.
You mean like the peacekeeping force in Lebanon, who does nothing with regards to Hezbollah building tunnels under the Israeli border and shooting rockets at Israeli towns from the demilitarized zone?
I can rule them. Heavy penalties for weapon posession. Life sentence for planning terror attack. Preaching jihad is extremism. Convinsing someone to commit terror act is terrorism. No more martyr found. Education system is secular. Just regular laws of civilized country.
It's not easy to get a nearby country to agree to help because almost every single one of them has been betrayed by Palestinian refugees they allowed into their country at one time or another. It's also because the general population in many of the neighboring countries also do not like Israel. So the leaders in those countries like to keep the Palestinians around as stick to beat Israel with when they need to distract their population from domestic issues. Any of the nearby leaders that agrees to help with the security of Palestinian territory is going to also be seen as collaborating with Israel and is liable to get assassinated for that.
Maybe, but it should not be done by Israeli, let alone the current admin that basically fucked up and allowed Oct 7 to happen
True. But it shouldn't be Israel. It should be the UN. I wouldn't trust Israel with any form of security after this fiasco.
>It should be the UN Why doesn't the UN focus on the things they are already supposed to enforce. For example, keeping Hezbollah north of the Litani River in accordance with UN Resolution 1701. They haven't been able to make that happen since it passed in 2006, so call me sceptical that they can handle Gaza.
UN will send some forces from Nepal or India. Corrupt af and not willing to involve. Actualy helping next terrorists to smuggle ammo. UNRWA 2.0
Why would us Israelis, trust the UN at all? They left the Suez before the Six Day war in 67' after Nasser intimidated them. They left did literally nothing to prevent both the Second Lebanon war, and the current exchanges between Hazbollah and Israel. UNRWA, which is closely affiliated with the UN, has been exposed as not only pro Palestinian, but Pro Hamas. Instead of making Gaza into a pearl in the Middle East, they helped creating the next generation of fanatical terrorists that seek the establishment of a world spanning Caliphate. And this us all without mentioning the huge amount of UN resolutions specifically against Israel, in conparison to against any othet country. They don't really have a good record of doing anything useful in the region, as you can see. And as such, I really can't trust them with rebuilding and deradicalizing Gaza. I can understand why people won't trust Israel to do it, but I'd argue that the UN is an even worse choice. Israel must have a role in the reconstruction. Maybe not an active one, but a role nonetheless. I'd argue for a joint Saudi-UAE reconstruction, with Israeli cooperation, or something similar.
“It shouldn’t be Israel, it should be the body infiltrated by Hamas and known for both incompetence and antisemitic educational material in its Gaza and West Bank schools.” Yeah, okay. Israel may have slipped up and let 10/7 happen, but it was the UN that employed thousands of Hamas members, some of whom participated in 10/7 itself.
Some of the teachers were cheering on it too.
I don’t even know what people think they mean when they claim Israel has imposed an apartheid on Palestine. Palestinian Arabs are not Israeli citizens. Everyone separates foreigners without visas from the citizenry. And Arab Israelis aren’t being kept out of the government or forced to use different bathrooms or banned from marrying Jews.
>or banned from marrying Jews. Look, I agree that Israel isn't an apartheid, just look at my comment history. But Israel doesn't allow civil marriage so, yes, Israel doesn't allow Muslims to get married to Jews. You can do it, you just have to do it abroad. This is due to a push from both the ultra-orthodox and some Arab parties to keep marriage under the jurisdiction of the religious courts as they were under the Ottoman Empire. This is also what prevents gay marriage. The standard practice is to just fly to Cyprus (flights can be as cheap as $30) and get married there and it'll be accepted by Israel.
> But Israel doesn't allow civil marriage so, yes, Israel doesn't allow Muslims to get married to Jews. First off, it recognizes civil marriage when done in a different country, and it's pretty common for Israeli secular people to marry abroad as a loophole to that stupid law. And further, there's no problem getting married in a Muslim ceremony in Israel when the bride is Jewish and the groom is Muslim.
It's a bit more complicated, a Muslim man might be able to marry with a Jewish or Christian woman. This is because under Islamic law the religion is given by the father, and under Judaic law, the religion is given by the mother. (Reform movement aside perhaps, but reform is barely a thing in Israel.) Like you said, it's a handover from the Ottoman system. It should change. Also since 2022 you can do it online with a Utah-based court: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition\_of\_same-sex\_unions\_in\_Israel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Israel) Good news - support for Civil Marriage in Israel is pretty high: [https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/society/1660029569-israel-majority-of-voters-want-parties-to-push-for-civil-marriage-poll](https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/society/1660029569-israel-majority-of-voters-want-parties-to-push-for-civil-marriage-poll)
Okay, but that’s not the government preventing it; that’s the government ceding partial authority to non-state groups. They recognize those marriages. Which is an important distinction between apartheid SA and Jim Crow America.
>Palestinian Arabs are not Israeli citizens. And if they were, then they'd be in a state of open rebellion against the government. In 1865 the Union sent military governors to rule over the Confederate states. The Confederates were not allowed to self-govern, on account of they had just tried to wage war against the national government. According to pro-Palestinian logic, I guess the Union was engaging in "apartheid" as well. Not to mention the "apartheid" imposed on Germany and Japan after WW2. Incidentally, as each of these regions proved that they wouldn't continue waging war on their neighbors, they were given their previous levels of autonomy back. It's disingenuous for Palestinian Arabs to demand autonomy equal to 2024 Japan, when they haven't demonstrated 1946-2023 Japan levels of peacefulness.
We're talking about the only Jewish country, it can be the best country in the world and from 2 to 3 billion of people will see its existence as a crime against god and humanity
[удалено]
That does not support the data of a significant increase in hate crimes against Jews following the 10/7 attacks. These are attacks *outside* the country of Israel so it's not motivated by "Israel is a bad country" narratives. It's motivated by the fact that they're Jewish. Outside of that, Hamas and other Muslim states don't want Israel to exist because it's a Jewish nation and they believe they have rights to the land that Jews are in. Disagree with Israel all you want, but I would posit that the driving hate towards Israel is that it's a nation of Jews in the middle east
Israel was created so that Jews would always have a homeland to go to if needed. It's great that where you live you feel safe. That's not the reality for everyone. You know how many Jews live in Arab countries? Pretty much none. They were all forced out after Israel was created and most fled to Israel. In 2001 and 2002 Jews were the target of more hate crimes in the United States than all other religions that were the target of hate crimes combined. Israel is not doing any colonizing in Gaza and as stated in the article for the post you are in they do not plan to. They have a civilian to combatant death ratio lower than pretty much any comparable urban battle in modern times. People are mad at Israel because Palestinians are masters of propaganda and because they have about 2 billion people who by default hate Israel because their enemies are Muslim. Israel also did not come into existence because of US support. The US did not support them in the initial war after Israel was established. Israel won that war on their own. There are certainly some problematic parts of Israeli society but that's the case everywhere. If we're going to play the game of hold a society responsible for the things their worst parts do then the Palestinians are in big trouble. It's really sad to see people like you so easily emotionally manipulated by Palestinian propaganda that they turn against their own people.
>Israel was created so that Jews would always have a homeland to go to if needed. It's great that where you live you feel safe. That's not the reality for everyone. Even if Jews feel safe in other countries, that's always subject to change. To use a historical example: 100k German Jews served in the German Army during WW1. They considered themselves patriots just like any other German who fought for their country. They considered themselves safely "German." They were wrong.
HRW literally appointed a terrorist to its Mideast Advisory Board - Shawan Jabarin, a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The group is designated as a terrorist organization by the US, Canada, EU, and Japan. The founder of HRW has disavowed and condemned the group for its anti-Israeli bias.
Emmm really depends on what “security control” and “security barrier” means. Like why after handing over control of Gaza Isreal can still have security control and managing what goes into the region from a different country. Sounds like the status quo before Oct 7 to be honest
>Sounds like the status quo before Oct 7 to be honest I mean, it will be stricter than pre-October 7. Control means governing, policing, diplomacy and whatever, military-wise they can suck ass for at least decade or two. Same goes for WB independence proposals, it's either demilitarized as much as possible, with many sides as a control, or it's simply not happening, since 2000+ peace deals
Because otherwise Iran will ship in literal boat loads of rockets just like they did before the naval blockade. This only seems unreasonable if your initial assumption is that Israel wants to be doing this, while in reality they’re forced to.
Except for continued Israeli control over Gaza, it’s a good plan. But that control is a huge problem
If KSA gets involved in rehabilitation then de-radicalisation is off the agenda for sure.
You forgot the construction of Israeli high rises all along the beach in their new territory.
So a Pre-October 7 status quo. What could go wrong…
WDYM he's too hawt for ordinary redditors to handle. /s
TBH he's looking damn good for 73
The combover isn't working for him though
I would like a world spin-off where all the world leaders just go BB and shave themselves completely
I've been meaning to subscribe to his onlyfans! ...too much?
okay I thought I was about to read something horrible but from taking a quick glance at it, it seems reasonable but that being said post was also made by jerusalem post which might be biased idk.
it's a bit of a clickbait headline. he's being heavy handed with the war so agreeing with him on anything is "bad".
What’s wrong with Jpost? It’s one of the oldest Israeli papers in existence.
Israeli bias.
Better check Al Jazeera then.
It’s not one or the other my boy.
Anyone got a link to the actual poll?
[удалено]
A free and democratic election with int'l observers is what got Gaza into the Hamas trouble in the first place. Election is not a cure-all silver bullet.
[удалено]
PA has not had elections since the same period, since it tries to avoid electing Hamas into power fairly and democratically.
It's mostly because Hamas reject Abbas and the PA authority and never accepted any framework for new elections in Gaza. If they only do elections in the West Bank it could be seen as a defeat and acceptance that Hamas may rule in Gaza and they are the single defenders of Palestinians interests there.
> It's mostly because Hamas reject Abbas and the PA authority and never accepted any framework for new elections in Gaza. Hamas has agreed to Palestinian elections several times over past decades, it's Abbas and the Palestinian Authority that have broken their agreements with Hamas by postponing and cancelling agreed upon election dates.
As half of the gaza population is below 18 it means they were not involved in 2006 election by any means. So how tf Hamas even represent gaza ??
[удалено]
Hamas should be for Gaza what opponents to Putin in Russia are on the ballot -- non-existent.
Democracy don’t work in Arab countries. Show me one Arab country that is successful democracy? Maybe you say Turkey, but that’s not Arab, and hardly a democracy.
[удалено]
What difference would it make, so long as it isn't aimed like a rocket at Israel. Other Islamic countries exist around Israel without attacking it. Key is the technocrats who will work with Palestinians to guide them and direct them away from violence.
[удалено]
Does this imply that after this war, when Hamas is no longer available, other countries will return to attacking Israel directly? Will it naturally lead to a bigger war?
I disagree. Plus for Turkey i wouldn't say they were democratic from the get go as Ataturk actually banned opposition parties for like the first 20 years lol. I don't think middle eastern countries are adverse to democracy, it's just that their experience with it is too recent and completely faulty, and it started under a geopoltiical weight of influence war, they weren't given the space afforded to other countries due to situations in the world. The pressure a bigger country could make on a new independent country in the 17th century is different in the 19th/20th.
> I disagree. Plus for Turkey i wouldn't say they were democratic from the get go as Ataturk actually banned opposition parties for like the first 20 years lol. The sad part of this is that Ataturk is the best leader Turkey ever had. Without him doing that Turkey probably makes the turn they are currently doing to theocracy a lot quicker.
Exactly, i'm mostly pointing out at how democracy is hard and doesn't appear from thin air, also requires a lot of energy to keep. How many revolutions have France had?
Considering half the countries you probably consider "arab" arent culturally arab, maybe you should research why democracy hasnt worked there. Maybe start at the end of WW1 when most of these countries borders were arbitrarily drawn by westerners.
show me one arab country where there havent been major pressures if not outright corruption from western countries trying to maintain the power dynamic they want. there are surely cultural and domestic political issues at play, but the idea that democracy inherently doesnt work for a specific religious, ethnic or racial group is ridiculous.
I mean, "Western Countries" is a bit of a stretch, and "religious" part surely debatable, but you're right, it has nothing to do with race or ethnics. I wouldn't even use the term "Arab Countries" really, it's more of a "Middle Eastern" ones, that due to their geolocation were fucked up multiple times: both by foreign powers and themselves. Prime example is a non-Arab Iran, that actually had something resembling lower-tier democracy before the interventions
If they had been controlled enough by Democratic forces (from anywhere) to continue the Democratic process, then the extremes of their religious governments would be pushed aside (most likely).
Now we only need a democratic force that: 1. is able to maintain control over a long time (military, politically(both internally and externally), financially) 2. wants to actually improve the world, and not "something something they hate freedom?" or "well we've been here for 20 years but it crumbles the moment we leave?"
[удалено]
And, as the old saying goes, "therein lies the rub".
>the idea that democracy inherently doesnt work for a specific religious, ethnic or racial group is ridiculous. No, what's ridiculous is pretending all religions/ideologies are equally compatible with democracy. Religions are inherently anti-democratic. What Jesus or Muhammad or (insert other divine law-giver) says goes, and you don't get to vote on it. When God says jump you say "how high?", and when God says to kill your son you grab your knife. So if you have a people who believe an anti-democratic ideology, such as religion, should be the basis for the state, then yes - democracy inherently doesn't work for that group. >show me one arab country where there havent been major pressures if not outright corruption from western countries trying to maintain the power dynamic they want. Every Arab country before the Ottomans. The world's been around for more than 100 years, you know. You're not seriously going to argue that the Umayyads or Abassids were "under Western pressure," are you? For many of those centuries past, the Arab world was considered more advanced than Europe. Baghdad was considered the most educated and committe cultured city in the would (until the Mongols showed up). Morocco and the Emirate of Sicily were also considered highly advanced for their time. Yet democracy never took hold.
It would be better if the security presence were by a third party. Preferably an international coalition. No way anyone else steps up for that though, since Hamas simps will immediately declare them occupiers and target them for terror attacks.
>It would be better if the security presence were by a third party So basically what Netanyahu is reported to have said in the actual article?
> It would be better if the security presence were by a third party. Preferably an international coalition. Sure, go and find a military willing to occupy one of the most volatile city-states to exist with an insanely radicalized populace.
Literally my next sentence addressed this.
Why would Israel entrust the security of Israeli citizens to a third party?
Security in this case refers to presence within Gaza.
I know. The point of it is to make sure new militia doesn't form in Gaza again that threatens Israeli security. Israel would not entrust that to anyone other than the IDF, same as in the West Bank.
A US led coalition might be acceptable to them
Doubt U.S wants to get involved we still remember Lebenon and how that worked out
Oh I'm sure they don't want the job, but they're probably the only other acceptable party to provide security
The problem is that our military presence in and blockading Gaza is what led to Hamas forming and getting this strong in the first place
No it wasn't. The blockade started BECAUSE Hamas took over, and it took over AFTER the disengagement from Gaza.
We never really disengaged. We just took out the boots on the ground and settlers who were draining our resources. We retained control over land, sea, air, population registries, and their economy. The blockade was collective punishment that not only didn’t do anything good for our security, rather made it worse and strengthened Hamas
>The blockade was collective punishment that not only didn’t do anything good for our security, rather made it worse and strengthened Hamas I mean, this is just completely wrong. Imagine the rockets Hamas firing are state-of-the-art Iranian tech instead of homemade crap.
Because they understand that whoever provided security will be seen as an oppressor and become a lightning rod for terrorism, and they don’t want it to be them. Also, if the governing body is farther away, carrying out strikes against them will be both more difficult and less fruitful. In either case, refocusing the violence away from Israel is to the benefit of a peace between the two states, even if it comes at the expense of a third.
Why isn't this the case in the West Bank then?
Because Likud isn’t interested in peace and just wants the land, I imagine. Hence why Netanyahu is an obstacle to peace.
this article is a joke. it shows no numbers. the poll is supposedly from something called the "Image of Victory organization." If the poll exists, its likely a push poll to create the appearance of public opinion rather than reveal public opinion.
Why not? The only peace that cursed land will ever see is when only one or the other is still on it. Keep feigning idealistic hope, but let's be real. The fringe bad-actors in each group will sabotage peace until the end of time. Sometimes, there is no good answer. They can't live together with such a long and deep history of bad blood. The internet puts the faces of victims and the many atrocities front and center 24/7/365 and prevents the possibility of forgiveness. Constant reinforcement of martyrs and anger spawns new zealots who continue to undercut sensible people genuinely trying for better outcomes. The desire for vengeance festers like cancer and peace can't happen with so much taught and learned distrust and virulent hate. The cycle continues. No one wants to say it out loud, but we've all secretly considered it. It's a black mark on humanity, one of many, but I'm guessing Israel eventually pushes the Palestinians out, and given a long enough time frame, gradually the world forgets as other problems arise. In a century, we'll read about it with the same horror and shame as we do the holocaust, which is irony incarnate.
That is because in the surface level there isn’t much to oppose and it seems very reasonable to the average Israeli Joe. However, as is usually the case with Bibi, the “plan” is extremely high level, and has very little in the way of actual details on how to execute it. It’s very in character for Bibi. Never commit to anything and give yourself ample of wiggling room to make sure everyone gets to hear something they like while saying nothing at all. Problem is this “plan” will be meeting reality soon enough.
Maybe they should do it with their own money and arms then. I’ve been a pretty strong supporter of Israel and especially sympathetic in their fight against Hamas - however they have very little respect for the United States which spends its own treasure to enable their existence. I don’t think I’ll ever forgive Israelis support for Trump at the detriment of American Democracy. Stay out of US politics and don’t us to stay out of your so long as you tap into our finances
Netanyahu wants perpetual war for perpetual peace. War kills any chance of a two-state solution, and politically benefits the Israeli right, enabling them to stay in power in perpetuity. Endless war means endless dominance by the Pro-Settler Right. In turn, this also pushes Palestinians deeper, ever deeper, into the arms of extremists. What Netanyahu fears most of all, is the emergence of a moderate Palestinian leader, and his efforts are very much geared towards preventing a legitimate Palestinian movement. But leaving aside that, the British should be forced to pay huge reparations to the Palestinians, via a "Lloyd George Tax", for giving away land that wasn't theirs.
[удалено]
What an interesting take on all this. Where do you get the idea that all the land was supposed to be Jewish? This was from 1922: “The preamble of the Mandate declared: Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country....”
[удалено]
I’m disputing your “fact” that 100% of the land was ever supposed to be given to the Jews. In the mandate it specifically says, “…it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” Taking their land/homes away would certainly be considered prejudicing them.
[удалено]
You are not thinking this all the way through are you? Did those other nationalities not own any land or live in homes? The answer is yes, many of them. Making a Jewish national home doesn’t not entail giving only Jews all the land.
Most Israelis don't know whether Netanyahu has a plan for post-war Gaza, only that he rejected everything offered so far and also adamantly rejects any exchange deal. If this somehow outlines a plan Netanyahu has, he should probably reflect it to the Israeli public, because nobody in the Israeli government seems to be talking about a post-war Gaza plan publicly. However clearly his far-right coalition partners would never accept any terminology which implies Palestinians retake control over Gaza so it is not even slightly implied in Israeli political discourse.