6 ms·
For clarity, because the distinctions are important to a lot of people: Israel has agreed to suspend/delay the process of annexation of West Bank land, they hav
by newacct583 6y ago
For clarity, because the distinctions are important to a lot of people: Israel has agreed to suspend/delay the process of annexation of West Bank land, they haven't renounced the underlying claim. And there is no agreement to halt the settlement-building process there.
- andrew_ 6y agoBaby steps are still steps. The good has to start somewhere.
- helge9210 6y agoAs israeli citizen I have to clarify: Israel never had a claim on West Bank. Some political forces have. Currently it is under military occupation. There is no internal consensus on this issue. Same goes for the settlements.
- calcifer 6y ago.
- helge9210 6y agoI did notice how you replaced annexation with occupation. There will always be part of population that is less smart (for various reasons). They'll always vote for those parties.
- LegitShady 6y agoThere are plenty of smart people who might disagree with you as well.
- LegitShady 6y agoBecause after decades of trying to make peace and seeing the situation get worse the general population of Israel no longer believes in feel good leftism without some real world solutions. It's all well and good to be anti occupation but then you see rocket production and launching capacity and Gaza and have no interest in seeing that elsewhere.
- tunesmith 6y agoBut what does that have to do with settlements? How is a settlement a real world solution? How does a settlement prevent rocket production?
- LegitShady 6y agoLetting Hamas have control of Gaza created a territory controlled by Hamas that produces weapons to the detriment of its people, that aims weapons at cities anywhere near it, and who teach violent extremism in their united nations funded schools (where hamas keeps winning elections for leadership too). Many people in Israel will not accept a similar situation for the west bank, and will vehemently reject leftists without actual solutions. The settlements are a different faction than people who might vote for leftists if they had demonstrable solutions.
- tunesmith 6y agoBut that's a justification for creating settlements anywhere Hamas is, which is all of Palestine. "We must build settlements on contested land, because Hamas is building rockets, because we are on contested land, because we must build settlements on contested land, because Hamas is building rockets..."
- LegitShady 6y agoAgain the faction that is pro settlement is not the kind that will vote in realistic left wing governments if they appear. The issue is not just that faction exists it is that there is no solution from the left in Israel that stands basic scrutiny for centrist to think about voting them in. If there is no long term solution in view then people will act now to put themselves in the strongest position if something changes. Land swaps in future deals etc are only made stronger, and the faction not interested in giving it away are appeased. Also Hamas has political control of Gaza but not the west bank. There will be no future where Israel accepts Hamas control of the west bank. If you cannot integrate this into your thinking then think about the US making peace with Isis, etc because some Syrians picked them.
- yoavm 6y agoBecause people consider more things when they choose a political party other than their views regarding the occupation? Most people in Israel wake up in the morning and their first thought isn't "what should we do about this occupation thing". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_solution#Public_opinion_in_Israel_and_Palestine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_solution#Public_opin...
- Udik 6y ago> Currently it is under military occupation. Israel is settling civilian population there in large amounts, this is forbidden by international law and goes against the claim of "military occupation" (which must be temporary in nature).
- helge9210 6y agoI don't know about international law, but it goes against one of Geneva conventions Israel signed. Also, I'm not sure, it must be temporary. Usually occupying force want to leave it establish civil administration ASAP due to costs.
- cik 6y agoSigning the Geneva conventions (I-IV) has nothing to do with their acceptance - it's a willingness to continue the conversation. The conventions themselves specify this process. There's a ratification step, which was has never occurred in Israel. The only part of the Geneva convention Israel has ratified is Protocol III, which specifically allows for the red crystal to be used instead of the red cross and crescent symbols. Signing the convention in 1949 was a smart thing to do. Watching the world give less than a wit about it in 1949 is the same reason it hasn't been ratified in Israel.
- mytailorisrich 6y agoI'm thinking that the UAE wanted to show something for this peace agreement in order not to be accused of giving in. I'm sure everyone understands that this annexation process will resume at the first opportunity, but for the time being this allows everyone to pat themselves on the back.
- amitport 6y agoThe way I'm reading it both Israel and UAE just wanted an excuse for some of their internal forces. But in essence Israel never really intended to go forward with annexation and UAE never really cared about it.