4 ms·

No offence taken. > But there is simply no simple solution that anyone has for how to solve it. I think the problem can be less complicated if there is a sinc

No offence taken. > But there is simply no simple solution that anyone has for how to solve it. I think the problem can be less complicated if there is a sincere open conversation around it. Let's put some context. In 1948 lots of people were dispossessed of their land and properties, this is still a very controversial thing that is very difficult to talk about. Just go to Jaffa in Israel and ask any Israeli person living in an Arab looking house how their family got to own it and you will realise how of a taboo subject this is. Of course there is no reparations or right of return in the pipeline of the talks. So the first step to solve a problem is realising of it's existence. Instead, Israel seems to continue putting pressure onto the Palestinians with the appropriation of more land and the creation of more settlements [0]. [0] - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-45276555 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-45276555

edanm 8y ago
> I think the problem can be less complicated if there is a sincere open conversation around it. While I wish that was true, I don't think it is. For one thing, I don't think the subject is nearly as taboo as you imagine - Israelis love to talk politics, after all! However I think that most Israelis would disagree with your characterization of what happened in '48. The (I think typical) view is that the UN decided to split Israel into two states, one for Jews and one for Palestinians. However, the Arab countries urged the Palestinians to leave Israel, as they were preparing to attack Israel. They attacked, Israel won, and ended up with all the original land, with most of the Palestinians having fled to neighboring countries in the meantime. Israel didn't really do anything wrong - it simply won a war, which would likely have ended up with Israel destroyed if it had lost. Reparations wouldn't really make sense in that view. (That summary is basically my view of the history as I understand it, so assume the summary would probably be told differently by someone with a different opinion.) The other issue with your statement is that even with open conversation around this issue wouldn't really change anything. At the end of the day, the right of return is something that simply can't be granted, not if Israel wants to remain a Jewish country, which is the entire reason it was founded (and in my view, in light of the historical precedents, a totally valid and moral reason). And Israelis simply don't trust the Palestinians with having a state right next to it - which probably doesn't matter much, since Palestinians don't appear to accept such a solution either. So simply saying "well let's just talk about it and it will work out" is ignoring the fact that, no, there probably isn't a solution right now that both sides will find acceptable, unfortunately, and the structural forces of the situation are probably such that nothing will change anyway (e.g. as I said, Israel being in power and thinking it's probably better to delay action on this as much as possible, Hamas being in power in Gaza and preferring to keep the situation mostly as is).
- Udik 8y ago
  > The (I think typical) view is that the UN decided to split Israel into two states, one for Jews and one for Palestinians. However, the Arab countries urged the Palestinians to leave Israel, as they were preparing to attack Israel. Haha. No. The UN decided to split Palestine in two states, giving half of it to the Jews. Of course the Jews had everything to gain from this partition and the Palestinians everything to lose, since they were the sole owners of the place. Of course they rejected the partition and there was a war, but the Palestinians have been actively expelled by the Israeli army. In fact, 200 thousand of them had already fled their villages before Israel's declaration of independence, to escape from violence- episodes like that of Deir Yassin, where a Jewish commando massacred the inhabitants of a Palestinian village- women and children included-, throwing grenades inside the houses. It was a proper ethnic cleansing operation. > Israel didn't really do anything wrong No, as far as ethnic cleansing goes, Israel didn't do anything wrong. > At the end of the day, the right of return is something that simply can't be granted, not if Israel wants to remain a Jewish country I agree with this. However, I also think that the right of return is mostly aspirational, and given good will on Israel's part, the issue could be just ignored long enough until it's not an issue anymore. By good will on Israel's part, I mean: establish a border once and for all (on the green line), abandon all settlements beyond that border, either renounce completely to Jerusalem east or share the undivided capital with a Palestinian state, completely remove the blockade of Gaza (and create a wide corridor between Gaza and the West Bank). Stop opposing the creation of a Palestinian state, and contribute to it with aids and reparations (that would make up for the right of return). You'll say: this is a lot to ask from Israel. And it is, because Israel is currently enjoying great profits from its illegal and immoral actions, and there will be no end to the conflict until it decides to abide to international law and moral standards.
  - edanm 8y ago
    > Haha. No. The UN decided to split Palestine in two states, giving half of it to the Jews. You're right of course, I misspoke, it wasn't yet Israel. > Of course the Jews had everything to gain from this partition and the Palestinians everything to lose, since they were the sole owners of the place. I'm not sure that's true - the territory was under British control, then was given over to the UN. > Of course they rejected the partition and there was a war, but the Palestinians have been actively expelled by the Israeli army. In fact, 200 thousand of them had already fled their villages before Israel's declaration of independence, to escape from violence- episodes like that of Deir Yassin, where a Jewish commando massacred the inhabitants of a Palestinian village- women and children included-, throwing grenades inside the houses. It was a proper ethnic cleansing operation. Look, this is, to say the least, disputed. I'm not going to say I know any more than you about this - and I think even the most pro-Israeli version of events would still leave a lot of Israelis looking pretty bad (Deir Yassin being one obvious and horrific example). Many of the more pro-Israeli historians will point out the calls from Arab leaders for Palestinians to flee, the pretty clear reasoning that if the Arab countries had won the war, most likely Israel would have been largely exterminated, given even more reason for the Palestinians to flee, etc. I don't either of us can know for sure just how much of the Palestinians fleeing was because of Israeli actions, real fear, imagined fear, or what. Still, even after all this - is what happened so unprecedented by historical standards that leaves most people singling out Israel as a particularly immoral country? I mean, barely 3 years earlier WW2 had ended, in which millions were killed, in bombing of civilian populations, in the use of nuclear weapons, and in many other ways. Do you consider Germany to be an immoral country today because of what they did during WW2? Or England, the States, Japan? What bothers me is the (seeming) double standard, where people consider Israel to be so much worse, for doing so much less than almost any other country. The main reason we're still talking about this is because there are a lot of vested interests in keeping the Palestinian population in their terrible situation (including Israeli interests, but not only!). The birth of Israeli was far less terrible than many contemporary episodes (e.g. the situation in Syria, in which the death toll was sometimes as high as 10k per day iirc; not to say that this is the bar I set for Israel). > By good will on Israel's part, I mean: establish a border once and for all (on the green line), abandon all settlements beyond that border, either renounce completely to Jerusalem east or share the undivided capital with a Palestinian state, completely remove the blockade of Gaza (and create a wide corridor between Gaza and the West Bank) [...] You'll say: this is a lot to ask from Israel. And it is, because Israel is currently enjoying great profits from its illegal and immoral actions [...] First a minor point - the blockage isn't Israel's alone. It's also Egypt's. Secondly - I personally agree with a lot of your points and wish Israel behaved differently. E.g. I think the settlements are terrible. I understand why many people support them from a real-politick perspective (and of course some support them from a religious/"greater Israel" perspective too). Many Israelis don't support the settlements, but the right has been in power here for a long time. Still, you're ignoring the main issue for people like me - most of what you ask puts Israel at great risk. Splitting our capital, helping create a Palestinian state that's right on our border - it's pretty hard to do with a population of people who appear to be pretty hell-bent on killing us. Of course not all Palestinians would really want the destruction of Israel, and of course a big part of the reason they continue to attack Israel is because of their terrible situation, largely caused by Israel itself. That's the unfortunate reality we have to contend with - would you agree to put a bunch of people who are currently constantly trying to kill you, right on your border, and give them total freedom? Again, I'm not saying (nor have I ever said) that the situation is good - I think it's terrible. I just said that there are no simple good solutions here - and it's not just a matter of "Israel needs to sacrifice" - not when the sacrifice is opening up Israel to people who might kill 10s and even 100s of thousands of people. Btw, just to give one example - Hamas is constantly smuggling in things through the border, and using funds given to aid Palestinians, in order to do things like build tunnels into Israel, to allow them to perform terror attacks on Israelis (usually - go in and kill a bunch of civilians). Under this circumstance - which is the reality right now - do you really not see why Israelis are reluctant to open up the borders more? It's pretty obvious that doing so will directly result in more Israelis being killed. Do I think steps like this must happen to bring about peace? Yes. But that doesn't make it easier to take these steps.

edanm 8y ago

> I think the problem can be less complicated if there is a sincere open conversation around it. While I wish that was true, I don't think it is. For one thing, I don't think the subject is nearly as taboo as you imagine - Israelis love to talk politics, after all! However I think that most Israelis would disagree with your characterization of what happened in '48. The (I think typical) view is that the UN decided to split Israel into two states, one for Jews and one for Palestinians. However, the Arab countries urged the Palestinians to leave Israel, as they were preparing to attack Israel. They attacked, Israel won, and ended up with all the original land, with most of the Palestinians having fled to neighboring countries in the meantime. Israel didn't really do anything wrong - it simply won a war, which would likely have ended up with Israel destroyed if it had lost. Reparations wouldn't really make sense in that view. (That summary is basically my view of the history as I understand it, so assume the summary would probably be told differently by someone with a different opinion.) The other issue with your statement is that even with open conversation around this issue wouldn't really change anything. At the end of the day, the right of return is something that simply can't be granted, not if Israel wants to remain a Jewish country, which is the entire reason it was founded (and in my view, in light of the historical precedents, a totally valid and moral reason). And Israelis simply don't trust the Palestinians with having a state right next to it - which probably doesn't matter much, since Palestinians don't appear to accept such a solution either. So simply saying "well let's just talk about it and it will work out" is ignoring the fact that, no, there probably isn't a solution right now that both sides will find acceptable, unfortunately, and the structural forces of the situation are probably such that nothing will change anyway (e.g. as I said, Israel being in power and thinking it's probably better to delay action on this as much as possible, Hamas being in power in Gaza and preferring to keep the situation mostly as is).

Udik 8y ago
> The (I think typical) view is that the UN decided to split Israel into two states, one for Jews and one for Palestinians. However, the Arab countries urged the Palestinians to leave Israel, as they were preparing to attack Israel. Haha. No. The UN decided to split Palestine in two states, giving half of it to the Jews. Of course the Jews had everything to gain from this partition and the Palestinians everything to lose, since they were the sole owners of the place. Of course they rejected the partition and there was a war, but the Palestinians have been actively expelled by the Israeli army. In fact, 200 thousand of them had already fled their villages before Israel's declaration of independence, to escape from violence- episodes like that of Deir Yassin, where a Jewish commando massacred the inhabitants of a Palestinian village- women and children included-, throwing grenades inside the houses. It was a proper ethnic cleansing operation. > Israel didn't really do anything wrong No, as far as ethnic cleansing goes, Israel didn't do anything wrong. > At the end of the day, the right of return is something that simply can't be granted, not if Israel wants to remain a Jewish country I agree with this. However, I also think that the right of return is mostly aspirational, and given good will on Israel's part, the issue could be just ignored long enough until it's not an issue anymore. By good will on Israel's part, I mean: establish a border once and for all (on the green line), abandon all settlements beyond that border, either renounce completely to Jerusalem east or share the undivided capital with a Palestinian state, completely remove the blockade of Gaza (and create a wide corridor between Gaza and the West Bank). Stop opposing the creation of a Palestinian state, and contribute to it with aids and reparations (that would make up for the right of return). You'll say: this is a lot to ask from Israel. And it is, because Israel is currently enjoying great profits from its illegal and immoral actions, and there will be no end to the conflict until it decides to abide to international law and moral standards.
- edanm 8y ago
  > Haha. No. The UN decided to split Palestine in two states, giving half of it to the Jews. You're right of course, I misspoke, it wasn't yet Israel. > Of course the Jews had everything to gain from this partition and the Palestinians everything to lose, since they were the sole owners of the place. I'm not sure that's true - the territory was under British control, then was given over to the UN. > Of course they rejected the partition and there was a war, but the Palestinians have been actively expelled by the Israeli army. In fact, 200 thousand of them had already fled their villages before Israel's declaration of independence, to escape from violence- episodes like that of Deir Yassin, where a Jewish commando massacred the inhabitants of a Palestinian village- women and children included-, throwing grenades inside the houses. It was a proper ethnic cleansing operation. Look, this is, to say the least, disputed. I'm not going to say I know any more than you about this - and I think even the most pro-Israeli version of events would still leave a lot of Israelis looking pretty bad (Deir Yassin being one obvious and horrific example). Many of the more pro-Israeli historians will point out the calls from Arab leaders for Palestinians to flee, the pretty clear reasoning that if the Arab countries had won the war, most likely Israel would have been largely exterminated, given even more reason for the Palestinians to flee, etc. I don't either of us can know for sure just how much of the Palestinians fleeing was because of Israeli actions, real fear, imagined fear, or what. Still, even after all this - is what happened so unprecedented by historical standards that leaves most people singling out Israel as a particularly immoral country? I mean, barely 3 years earlier WW2 had ended, in which millions were killed, in bombing of civilian populations, in the use of nuclear weapons, and in many other ways. Do you consider Germany to be an immoral country today because of what they did during WW2? Or England, the States, Japan? What bothers me is the (seeming) double standard, where people consider Israel to be so much worse, for doing so much less than almost any other country. The main reason we're still talking about this is because there are a lot of vested interests in keeping the Palestinian population in their terrible situation (including Israeli interests, but not only!). The birth of Israeli was far less terrible than many contemporary episodes (e.g. the situation in Syria, in which the death toll was sometimes as high as 10k per day iirc; not to say that this is the bar I set for Israel). > By good will on Israel's part, I mean: establish a border once and for all (on the green line), abandon all settlements beyond that border, either renounce completely to Jerusalem east or share the undivided capital with a Palestinian state, completely remove the blockade of Gaza (and create a wide corridor between Gaza and the West Bank) [...] You'll say: this is a lot to ask from Israel. And it is, because Israel is currently enjoying great profits from its illegal and immoral actions [...] First a minor point - the blockage isn't Israel's alone. It's also Egypt's. Secondly - I personally agree with a lot of your points and wish Israel behaved differently. E.g. I think the settlements are terrible. I understand why many people support them from a real-politick perspective (and of course some support them from a religious/"greater Israel" perspective too). Many Israelis don't support the settlements, but the right has been in power here for a long time. Still, you're ignoring the main issue for people like me - most of what you ask puts Israel at great risk. Splitting our capital, helping create a Palestinian state that's right on our border - it's pretty hard to do with a population of people who appear to be pretty hell-bent on killing us. Of course not all Palestinians would really want the destruction of Israel, and of course a big part of the reason they continue to attack Israel is because of their terrible situation, largely caused by Israel itself. That's the unfortunate reality we have to contend with - would you agree to put a bunch of people who are currently constantly trying to kill you, right on your border, and give them total freedom? Again, I'm not saying (nor have I ever said) that the situation is good - I think it's terrible. I just said that there are no simple good solutions here - and it's not just a matter of "Israel needs to sacrifice" - not when the sacrifice is opening up Israel to people who might kill 10s and even 100s of thousands of people. Btw, just to give one example - Hamas is constantly smuggling in things through the border, and using funds given to aid Palestinians, in order to do things like build tunnels into Israel, to allow them to perform terror attacks on Israelis (usually - go in and kill a bunch of civilians). Under this circumstance - which is the reality right now - do you really not see why Israelis are reluctant to open up the borders more? It's pretty obvious that doing so will directly result in more Israelis being killed. Do I think steps like this must happen to bring about peace? Yes. But that doesn't make it easier to take these steps.