Israel at war

[Kautilya]

It's that I don't know how far back or how offended /spiteful is reasonable to draw the line at. And where to go from here. In practical terms.

Yes, I think this is a useful discussion to have because what is done is done regardless of who is wrong.

In my opinion, 1967 is a good line to draw because Israel started building settlements in the West Bank in 1967, which are actually illegal per international law.

So a good next step would be, to end the siege on Gaza. Hamas 100% needs to be removed from power, so I would say Israel needs to go after them in Qatar where their leaders are hiding using their special forces and covert ops. At the very least they need to be kept there and not allowed to influence anything in Gaza. Then install PA as the governing authority in Gaza, and then start negotiations for a 2 state solution. I think Israel needs to go back to 1967 borders, or a variation of it due to the settlements, and help create a Palestinian state with PA representing the Palestinians. Heck, even if it is just Gaza, Area A and Area B in the West Bank, the PA should accept! Set up a country, set up embassies, develop relationships, get recognized and then continue to negotiate.

Most importantly, Bibi and his far right wing extremists he is in bed with to stay in power need to step down or be deposed. He is an ultra right wing lunatic and as long as he is in power, this conflict will never end.

 

[Frankfooter]

-1

Yes, this is what I feel too.

Seems that it doesn't matter who the defender or aggressor is, or who is fundamentally right or wrong in so many conflicts.

Worse, it doesn't seem like we ever learn from history.

Worst of all, is the realization that all the 1970 and 80's Beauty Pageant contestants who said their one wish was "World Peace" had better values than we gave them credit for. And bigger delusions.

The super quick history, sure to start lots of debate on its own.
1900's Palestine was pluralistic, Muslim, Christian and Jews under British rule.
1900 - 1930's - the zionist movement decided Israel was their new homeland
WWII - holocaust and horrid shite happened to the Jewish people
Post WWII - Churchill, himself very racist, works to solve the Jewish refugee problem by offering them half of Palestine, despite having promised Palestinians to return the entire country to them.
1948 - UN agrees to give half of Palestine to 7% of the population, Palestinians aren't happy and zionists aren't either.
1948 -67 lots of fighting
1967 - Israel takes over all of Palestine
1967 - now - Israel wipes Palestine off the map, occasionally pretending to talk peace like with Oslo, but always establishing 'facts on the ground' as Netanyahu called them
1988 - Hamas is started in reaction to an ineffectual Palestinian government

Zionists are like Russia is to Ukraine here. A foreign movement that has taken over another country.

The issue is that there are 5 million Israeli Jews and 5 million Palestinians so while Israel has taken too much land to enact the two state solution if you ask them about the 'demographic' problem they'll also freak out. Israel can't exist as a 'Jewish' state if Palestinians have the vote, since they are half the population. And that leaves them where they are. No land left for a viable two state solution and too many Palestinians for them to accept Palestinians with equal rights. Palestinians have nowhere to go and don't want to join the other 5 million Palestinian refugees who were chased out of the country in 1948.

 

[Valcazar]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1786508125849240010

It depends a lot on what you think of "committing to followup" though.
As I've pointed out elsewhere, the students at Brown got less than what the students at Columbia rejected.

So depending on what you think a "win" is here, your view may vary.

 

[Frankfooter]

Yes, I think this is a useful discussion to have because what is done is done regardless of who is wrong.

In my opinion, 1967 is a good line to draw because Israel started building settlements in the West Bank in 1967, which are actually illegal per international law.

So a good next step would be, to end the siege on Gaza. Hamas 100% needs to be removed from power, so I would say Israel needs to go after them in Qatar where their leaders are hiding using their special forces and covert ops. At the very least they need to be kept there and not allowed to influence anything in Gaza. Then install PA as the governing authority in Gaza, and then start negotiations for a 2 state solution. I think Israel needs to go back to 1967 borders, or a variation of it due to the settlements, and help create a Palestinian state with PA representing the Palestinians. Heck, even if it is just Gaza, Area A and Area B in the West Bank, the PA should accept! Set up a country, set up embassies, develop relationships, get recognized and then continue to negotiate.

Most importantly, Bibi and his far right wing extremists he is in bed with to stay in power need to step down or be deposed. He is an ultra right wing lunatic and as long as he is in power, this conflict will never end.

But if you use 1967 then Israel has to give up all the settlements, which now house about half a million 'settlers'. The UN says all settlements are illegal.
It could be done, but only through international pressure, Israel would never agree.

The PA are as hated as Netanyahu. Turf them all, take Netanyahu and Hamas leaders to the ICC and keep them busy in court. Figure out if there is an alternative to the hard core right wingers in Israeli government. For Palestinians, Marwan Barghouti was once considered the Nelson Mandela of Palestinians, so Israel has kept him in jail forever.

Someone should come in and enforce the ICJ ruling on the apartheid wall and tear down all the walls. Tear down all the walls in the West Bank and tear down the walls around Gaza. It'll take 80 years and $40 billion to rebuild, latest UN guess.

Israel is now in a defacto one state apartheid solution, tear down the walls and give Palestinians the vote and equal rights.
Let them figure it out in parliament.

 

[Kautilya]

But if you use 1967 then Israel has to give up all the settlements, which now house about half a million 'settlers'. The UN says all settlements are illegal.
It could be done, but only through international pressure, Israel would never agree.

The PA are as hated as Netanyahu. Turf them all, take Netanyahu and Hamas leaders to the ICC and keep them busy in court. Figure out if there is an alternative to the hard core right wingers in Israeli government. For Palestinians, Marwan Barghouti was once considered the Nelson Mandela of Palestinians, so Israel has kept him in jail forever.

Someone should come in and enforce the ICJ ruling on the apartheid wall and tear down all the walls. Tear down all the walls in the West Bank and tear down the walls around Gaza. It'll take 80 years and $40 billion to rebuild, latest UN guess.

Israel is now in a defacto one state apartheid solution, tear down the walls and give Palestinians the vote and equal rights.
Let them figure it out in parliament.

Well Israel wont give up settlements. IMO, whoever you appoint as the Palestinian representative, the Palestinian side should just accept what they have. Like Gaza, Area A and Area B - if that is all they are getting, in return for forming a sovereign state, they should accept. Form the state first and everything else next.

 

[Valcazar]

There you have it folks. Killing 300,000 isn't genocide.

You know as well as anyone that "number of people killed" isn't the defining characteristic of genocide.

 

[Valcazar]

A history book. On campus. Go figure.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1786610556599689643

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1786600105526567130

The NYPD humiliating themselves like this with books and bike chains is one small thing I can enjoy about it all as a sort of dark humour.

 

[basketcase]

...

In my opinion, 1967 is a good line to draw because Israel started building settlements in the West Bank in 1967, which are actually illegal per international law.
...

The fact that you need to draw the line there says a lot. It's obvious why you don't want to start in 1919 when Arab leaders incited mob violence against indigenous Jewish populations or 1948 when Palestinian and Arab leadership chose rejection and war.

 

[basketcase]

...

Hamas are Palestinians. Palestinians are not Hamas.
Some terrorists are Muslim. Muslims are not terrorists.
Islamic Fundamentalists believe in Islam. Muslims who believe in Islam are however, not fundamentalists.
...

Yet when it comes to Israel's Jews, you have said they all should be expelled, even the ones who have dedicated their lives to fighting for Palestinian rights.

 

[Kautilya]

The fact that you need to draw the line there says a lot. It's obvious why you don't want to start in 1919 when Arab leaders incited mob violence against indigenous Jewish populations or 1948 when Palestinian and Arab leadership chose rejection and war.

I dont want to start in 1919 or 1948, because there is no point in doing so when thinking about what we should do next. I have already said I reject the premise of Israel. If I was God, or had the miraculous power to turn back the clock, Israel would not exist as a country AT ALL and we would not be having this discussion.

Yet when it comes to Israel's Jews, you have said they all should be expelled, even the ones who have dedicated their lives to fighting for Palestinian rights.

That is an outright blatant lie. Quote my post where I said that.

 

[basketcase]

-1

The super quick history, sure to start lots of debate on its own.
1900's Palestine was pluralistic, Muslim, Christian and Jews under British rule.
1900 - 1930's - the zionist movement decided Israel was their new homeland
WWII - holocaust and horrid shite happened to the Jewish people
Post WWII - Churchill, himself very racist, works to solve the Jewish refugee problem by offering them half of Palestine, despite having promised Palestinians to return the entire country to them.
1948 - UN agrees to give half of Palestine to 7% of the population, Palestinians aren't happy and zionists aren't either.
1948 -67 lots of fighting
1967 - Israel takes over all of Palestine
1967 - now - Israel wipes Palestine off the map, occasionally pretending to talk peace like with Oslo, but always establishing 'facts on the ground' as Netanyahu called them
1988 - Hamas is started in reaction to an ineffectual Palestinian government

Zionists are like Russia is to Ukraine here. A foreign movement that has taken over another country.

The issue is that there are 5 million Israeli Jews and 5 million Palestinians so while Israel has taken too much land to enact the two state solution if you ask them about the 'demographic' problem they'll also freak out. Israel can't exist as a 'Jewish' state if Palestinians have the vote, since they are half the population. And that leaves them where they are. No land left for a viable two state solution and too many Palestinians for them to accept Palestinians with equal rights. Palestinians have nowhere to go and don't want to join the other 5 million Palestinian refugees who were chased out of the country in 1948.

I love that you are at least attempting to discuss history. Would you like some of the gaps filled in? I know you refuse to believe Arabs can have agency or ability to make their decisions but...


I actually spent 15 minutes writing up a deep summary of the conflict but I know you won't read and instead will just scream , yell, spam tweets, and fake posts.

 

[basketcase]

I dont want to start in 1919 or 1948, because there is no point in doing so when thinking about what we should do next. I have already said I reject the premise of Israel. If I was God, or had the miraculous power to turn back the clock, Israel would not exist as a country AT ALL and we would not be having this discussion.

That is an outright blatant lie. Quote my post where I said that.

What hypocrisy. If you want to deal with what to do next, then there's no reason to start in 1967.

Next should be pressuring both sides to negotiate something that works for the 10 million Israelis, 5 million in West Bank and Gaza, and the millions of refugees and descendants.

And it is moronic to claim Canada's theft of land created a legitimate state but say it's illegitimate for Jews to continue being in the Middle East.

 

[basketcase]

Well Israel wont give up settlements. IMO, whoever you appoint as the Palestinian representative, the Palestinian side should just accept what they have. Like Gaza, Area A and Area B - if that is all they are getting, in return for forming a sovereign state, they should accept. Form the state first and everything else next.

Except they have in the past and Olmert's offer in 2008 offered a completely contiguous Palestinian state.

And sorry but why would anyone offer a state before working out any details or even getting the other side to accept that state as a permanent resolution to the conflict?

 

[Kautilya]

What hypocrisy. If you want to deal with what to do next, then there's no reason to start in 1967.

Next should be pressuring both sides to negotiate something that works for the 10 million Israelis, 5 million in West Bank and Gaza, and the millions of refugees and descendants.

And it is moronic to claim Canada's theft of land created a legitimate state but say it's illegitimate for Jews to continue being in the Middle East.

Of course there is a reason to start in 1967 because Israel is ILLEGALLY occupying Palestinian land, and that started in 1967. Given Israelis have taken just about everything, you HAVE to start in 67 because a sovereign Palestinian state should involve giving back atleast some land.

And no, Canada started off as a colony that existed purely for trade, and was then formed as a country. It was a natural transition. Israel on the other hand was formed based on religious mumbo jumbo, violently and suddenly. So Israel's formation and premise is illegitimate, Canada's is not.

Except they have in the past and Olmert's offer in 2008 offered a completely contiguous Palestinian state.

And sorry but why would anyone offer a state before working out any details or even getting the other side to accept that state as a permanent resolution to the conflict?

Yeah right. The map drawn on a napkin that Abbas was not allowed to take back to his people for review. Bullshit. And I am saying they should negotiate the state. Not sure what you are going on about anyone "offering a state". What does that even mean?

 

[Frankfooter]

Well Israel wont give up settlements. IMO, whoever you appoint as the Palestinian representative, the Palestinian side should just accept what they have. Like Gaza, Area A and Area B - if that is all they are getting, in return for forming a sovereign state, they should accept. Form the state first and everything else next.

'
That's a problem.
First, keeping the settlements is a war crime.
Second, if you do, all you're left with are Bantustans.

How would that be different from the de facto apartheid state there now?

 

[Kautilya]

'
That's a problem.
First, keeping the settlements is a war crime.
Second, if you do, all you're left with are Bantustans.

How would that be different from the de facto apartheid state there now?

True. It should atleast start there and they could may be get Israel to surrender Area C. But I think a Bantustan is better than Israeli oppression and governance. I think benefits such as freedom of movement, freedom to elect their own leaders freedom to conduct their own business etc., is more important right now.

 

[Butler1000]

You know as well as anyone that "number of people killed" isn't the defining characteristic of genocide.

So of course those lives don't matrer then..

 

[Kautilya]

Israel has morally corrupted the west.

 

[shack]

I said that religious extremists who think they are the chosen people believe that, hammy.

That's strange because the entirety of what you typed was this:

I think there is an exception for all chosen people, they can do no wrong and slaughtering lesser humans is part of their path of righteousness.

I don't see what you claim. For sure, though, I see that you called Palestinians "lesser humans". You keep referring to genocide, so there's denying that's who you meant.

 

[mandrill]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1786951063066890692