7 ms·
I'm not a fan of the occupation of the West Bank, but those are not 1:1 scenarios. West Bank was occupied after Jordan initiated the offensive, not Israel, as o
by mupuff1234 5y ago
I'm not a fan of the occupation of the West Bank, but those are not 1:1 scenarios. West Bank was occupied after Jordan initiated the offensive, not Israel, as opposed to Russia who is the aggressor.
A 1:1 scenario would be if Ukraine invaded Russia and then Russia took control over Ukraine territory, which in that case i'd argue the outcry would be minimal.
- School-Cotton 5y agoAs I replied to a similar comment that was deleted: this is irrelevant ancient history. What matters is that Israel is maintaining their illegal occupation even today, and even expanding it (building new settlements, etc.)
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- pirate787 5y agoThe fact that the Arab world united and attempted to destroy Israel through invasion multiple times is not ancient history and certainly not irrelevant.
- School-Cotton 5y agoMost recently in 1973. Their occupation has gone on for almost fifty years since then.
- denton-scratch 5y agoIt is entirely irrelevant to the illegal occupation of the West Bank and the illegal transfer of populations into occupied territory.
- biorach 5y agoThe occupation of the West Bank does nothing to deter this. The annexation of the Golan Heights is somewhat justifiable on strategic grounds. The occupation of the West Bank is a land grab, pure and simple.
- nindalf 5y agoI think continuing to occupy West Bank and Gaza is unconscionable. But you’re mischaracterising the strategic importance of the West Bank. If it was a sovereign nation, the logical thing for the West Bank government to do would be to place artillery on the high ground near Israeli cities. The artillery would be sufficiently protected and would be capable of causing widespread destruction. That’s powerful negotiating leverage, even if the artillery isn’t used. This is similar to the state Seoul is in - within range of NK artillery. That’s why there is no 2 state solution the Israelis will agree to where the Palestinian state operates its own military. It might be morally right, but it would be a death sentence for Israel. Source - Prisoners of Geography by Tim Marshall.
- saiya-jin 5y agoNot arguing your statements, they make sense, but with this logic, horrible amoral inhumane things can be done (and are done daily) to innocent civilians basically forever, anywhere... not something I can accept. Not that my opinion makes any meaningful impact on global scale, but I do at least vote with wallet and don't buy any Israeli products. I respect their military prowess but I have much higher moral expectations from place I will anyhow support with my money.
- galangalalgol 5y agoFascinating! I may have to read that.
- biorach 5y ago> it would be a death sentence for Israel That's a massive exaggeration. It would theoretically be a risk for Israeli citizens living close to the border, but would lead to an overwhelming punitive response from the Israeli army, strongly backed by America. Israel has by far the most capable military in the region, routinely inflicts casualty ratios of 10-20:1 in its favour in any conflict with Palestinians, and is backed by the most powerful military in the world. The threat posed by an independent Palestine would be negligible. However the spectre of that threat is used to justify the continued occupation and expropriation of the West Bank.
- vivekd 5y agoBut thats not the situation today, you cant base current policy on past grievances
- mupuff1234 5y agoIf history doesn't matter why do you even consider it occupied territory?
- School-Cotton 5y agoBecause it’s under military occupation. And not recognized as Israeli territory by anyone, including Israel. If the territory had been annexed and put under civilian law and everyone there had been given Israeli citizenship 60 years ago, I would indeed agree that although that was bad, it’s not worth crying over spilled milk in the present day, much like e.g. the British conquest of Quebec. But that’s not the case. It remains a military occupation and bad stuff continues to happen, today.
- bawolff 5y agoQuebec happened because britian and france signed a peace treaty that both sides respected. Nobody has managed to cobble together a peace treaty for the israel-palestine situation that actually got respected.
- Mikeb85 5y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Plains_of_Abraham https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Plains_of_Abra... Not quite...
- bawolff 5y agoI disagree, the peace of paris (with its conditions like respecting roman catholics) not the battle, is what lead to quebec being relatively peacefully integrated into british rule. (To be clear not saying that things were perfect or anything)
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- arielb1 5y agoThe people of the West Bank have engaged in terrorism against Israeli civilians up to 2005 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Intifada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Intifada - and that's not particularly ancient history.
- denton-scratch 5y agoPeople in the UK have engaged in terrorism against UK citizens up until the present; that doesn't justify the UK occupying Ireland, and installing groups of settlers. I know, that's exactly what England did under Cromwell; one of my ancestors was such a settler.
- School-Cotton 5y agoIf the Ukraine war goes on for 50 more years you might start to see Ukrainians attacking Russian civilians too, once it’s clear they have no other option.
- burnoutgal 5y agoThe IDF have also murdered a lot of innocent palestinians, but if you do it dressed like a soldier somehow it's not "terrorism"
- msrenee 5y agoI don't have a lot of background in this, so tell me if I'm off-base. Israel is occupying land that it took from Palestine, is it not? I don't feel that terrorism is the correct term for attacks on an occupying force.
- bawolff 5y agoUmm, that's basically the definition of terrorism. 9/11 didn't happen out of the blue, it was a response to american foreign policy in the middle east. The troubles didn't happen because the IRA thought British rule was legitimate Etc. The vast majority of terrorism is because one group is controlling a region that the other group thinks they should not.
- bawolff 5y agoIf you're making a comparison its pretty relavent. If you don't consider the details of the situation, the comparison basically becomes so vauge as to be useless.
- hajile 5y agoJordan started a war and lost territory as a result. How is this abnormal?
- reallydontask 5y agoWest Bank occupation began on, or after, the six day war, a conflict started by Israel.
- jcranberry 5y agoIt's also not a complete 1:1 because the a big reason they are holding these territories is for national security. The west bank and golan heights are both ideal places which can be used to launch rockets into israeli. They tried relinquishing the gaza strip and what immediately happened was hamas took over it and started firing rockets at israel. so they're not likely to change their mind about the other territories after that.