4 ms·

The 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 ago
Most recently in 1973. Their occupation has gone on for almost fifty years since then.
denton-scratch 5y ago
It is entirely irrelevant to the illegal occupation of the West Bank and the illegal transfer of populations into occupied territory.
biorach 5y ago
The 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    Not 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 ago
    Fascinating! 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.
    - nindalf 5y ago
      Yes, just like the obviously better equipped South Korean armed forces will eventually defeat North Korea. They’re backed by the most powerful military in the world, as you say. But artillery still exists. And if the enemy has the high ground and the cities are in the plains, the death toll will be in the tens of thousands before victory is achieved. This is the reason every citizen in Seoul knows where the nearest bomb shelter is. I can understand (but not condone) someone wanting to avoid that fate.
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    A two-state solution isn't wanted by Israel (at least, not by the settlers and their supporters), nor by most Palestinians. Israel wants to keep the whole of the West Bank. Most Palestinians would like to live in a single state that isn't based on apartheid and oppression. It's really hard to imagine a two-state solution working, when leading Israeli politicians repeatedly declare that Israel consists of all the land between the Jordan and the sea. And even if it could be agreed, Israel would remain a segregated state. A single state with one-man one-vote would quickly put an end to apartheid, and to many of the most serious complaints of the Palestinians. The argument against a single-state solution is that it would put an end to the idea of a "Jewish homeland". That is true; but a "Jewish homeland" must necessarily be an apartheid homeland, which discriminates against non-Jews.
vivekd 5y ago
But thats not the situation today, you cant base current policy on past grievances

School-Cotton 5y ago

Most recently in 1973. Their occupation has gone on for almost fifty years since then.

denton-scratch 5y ago

It is entirely irrelevant to the illegal occupation of the West Bank and the illegal transfer of populations into occupied territory.

biorach 5y ago

The 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 ago
I 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 ago
  Not 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 ago
  Fascinating! 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.
  - nindalf 5y ago
    Yes, just like the obviously better equipped South Korean armed forces will eventually defeat North Korea. They’re backed by the most powerful military in the world, as you say. But artillery still exists. And if the enemy has the high ground and the cities are in the plains, the death toll will be in the tens of thousands before victory is achieved. This is the reason every citizen in Seoul knows where the nearest bomb shelter is. I can understand (but not condone) someone wanting to avoid that fate.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  A two-state solution isn't wanted by Israel (at least, not by the settlers and their supporters), nor by most Palestinians. Israel wants to keep the whole of the West Bank. Most Palestinians would like to live in a single state that isn't based on apartheid and oppression. It's really hard to imagine a two-state solution working, when leading Israeli politicians repeatedly declare that Israel consists of all the land between the Jordan and the sea. And even if it could be agreed, Israel would remain a segregated state. A single state with one-man one-vote would quickly put an end to apartheid, and to many of the most serious complaints of the Palestinians. The argument against a single-state solution is that it would put an end to the idea of a "Jewish homeland". That is true; but a "Jewish homeland" must necessarily be an apartheid homeland, which discriminates against non-Jews.

vivekd 5y ago

But thats not the situation today, you cant base current policy on past grievances