8 ms·

Yeah, they want the end to the ethnostate of Israel. Meanwhile, Israeli leaders want to end the entire Palestinian ethnicity. Given that, why would there be any

Yeah, they want the end to the ethnostate of Israel. Meanwhile, Israeli leaders want to end the entire Palestinian ethnicity. Given that, why would there be anything wrong with wanting an end to that state? Are the Palestinian people just supposed to lay down and die? I am genuinely curious what people like you expect them to do, and — if you were in the Palestinian position — what you would do.

edanm 3y ago
You've gotten a wrong impression that Israeli leaders want to end the entire Palestinian ethnicity. That's just... not true. It's demonstrably not true in that Israel has, at various times, agreed to peace deals that would create a two-state solution (which would mean there being a Palestinian state). These deals were rejected by the Palestinians for various reasons. In fact, the government of Gaza, which is Hamas, in contrast with Israel, both says that it wants to destroy Israel and kill all Jews, and also acts on it. So it's the Palestinian side (or at least Gaza's currently-elected leaders) that are trying to destroy the Israeli state. > if you were in the Palestinian position — what you would do. I'd try, to my best ability, to get decent leaders instead of Hamas, who would pursue the betterment of my people and pursue peace. Hamas spends so much of its resources on war with Israel, if they spend more of those resources on its own citizens, they would both be better off, and peace would happen far more quickly.
- enterprise_cog 3y ago
  Which side has forced the other into a 25x5 mile strip of land? What country doesn’t allow that land to be properly built out? Which country restricts movement, cut off food and water, disabled electricity, and has blocked most aid from entering Gaza? That’s Israel in case you aren’t sure. And those are acts of genocide. So why are you saying Israel doesn’t act on it?
  - edanm 3y ago
    First of all, I disagree with your list of things above. But for now, let's focus on this: > And those are acts of genocide. No, those aren't. Just in case I was wrong about this, I went and checked the UN's definition of genocide: > In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Israel is not trying to destroy the Palestinians using any of the above. Their numbers have doubled during the time Israel is around. Which of the things Israel is doing is a genocide as per this definition? Back to your "list of things Israel does", saying that Israel has "forced" Palestinians into a 25x5 mile strip of land is inaccurate. What do you mean forced? This is their land. Israel withdrew from it, they govern it themselves, in what way were they "forced" into it? And in what way does Israel not allow that land to be built out? Hamas isn't exactly big on improving the land, preferring to use their resources to kill Israelis, but that's no the fault of Israel. Again, Israel withdrew from that land and doesn't govern it! They can build things (and have, actually).
    - enterprise_cog 3y ago
      How is not allowing food, water, and aid into Gaza not Israel doing those things? How is the indiscriminate bombings of Gaza not any of those things? You are just denying reality to suit your point. That’s their land? Are you kidding? The entirety of what is called Israel now is their land, along with fellow Jews. Do you think people haven’t read the history of the area? To even say that shows an incredible ignorance of the history of the area. As to your last point, Israel controls what goes in Gaza. They limit the amount of concrete so they can’t build, for example. They control water, Palestinians have to get a permit to build water infrastructure from the Israeli government. They rarely grant them. Rain catchers set up by Palestinians are destroyed by the IDF or settlers. Not to mention, anything they do actually build ends up bombed by the Israelis. To say they don’t like to build things is, once again, an incredible display of ignorance. In fact, since your whole response is filled with such absurdly one sided takes that ignore reality, I have to assume you are trolling.
- mseidl 3y ago
  Israel supported hamas till 2020. Also the Bush in 2006 backed a coup for hamas. The west bank is the two state solution and it's horrible for palestinians. Even after the olso accords the number of illegal settlements went from 120k to 950k > In fact, the government of Gaza, which is Hamas, in contrast with Israel, both says that it wants to destroy Israel and kill all Jews, and also acts on it. So it's the Palestinian side (or at least Gaza's currently-elected leaders) that are trying to destroy the Israeli state. Hamas changed it's deal to be the emancipation of Palestine. Remember in front of the UN showed a map of israel without palestinians. the new government is so right wing and borderline facist. this video about the itamar ben gvir guy who was labeled as a terrorist and was too extreme for the idf was in the government. It shows some shit. https://youtu.be/OplM9oNmTfQ https://youtu.be/OplM9oNmTfQ
  - edanm 3y ago
    > The west bank is the two state solution and it's horrible for palestinians. Even after the olso accords the number of illegal settlements went from 120k to 950k It's not actually a two-state solution as it isn't a completely independent state. I'm definitely against the settlements though. I'd much prefer an actual peace be reached, official borders agreed upon, and therefore the end of settelments. As for Ben Gvir, I agree - he is horrible. He isn't the entire government, but he definitely represents a fringe (though still far too large) point of view. That said, Israeli have been protesting this government for a year, for this among other reasons. And like I said, you have to look at actions, not just at the rhetoric, horrible as the rheotric might be. (And again, I hate Ben Gvir and think it's a travesty he's part of the government. If he were the whole of the government, and the government actually carried out these kinds of actions on Palestinians, then we'd be in a similar situation as Gazans are in right now.)
  - mytailorisrich 3y ago
    >Hamas changed it's deal to be the emancipation of Palestine. Don't write in euphemisms. Their aim is the destruction of Israel and the expulsion or slaughter of all Jews. For a start... Supporting them is a criminal offence in a number of countries for a very good reason. So do say if that is what you support so that everything is crystal clear.
perfecthjrjth 3y ago
The deeper problem is not discussed at all: is it possible in a one-state solution (non ethnostate, that is) for Jews to co-exist with Muslims when the latter becomes majority? Past drives the decisions for the present and the future. The other issue heavily discussed is settlements in the West Bank. Settlements have caused, and continue to cause, problems: barriers, scanners, street closures (thereby preventing access for non-Jews), etc. Here, Israel downplays problems faced by locals. This is also a consequence of why it is not possible for Jews and Arabs to live together without barriers, scanners, closures. Arafat scuttled the camp David deal in 2000. Of course, that deal was bad to Palestinians from the latter's perspective. Can they get a better deal than that by NOT 'lay down and die'? From Clinton's biography: 'Finally, Arafat agreed to see Shimon Peres on the thirteenth after Peres had first met with Saeb Erekat. Nothing came of it. As a backstop, the Israelis tried to produce a letter with as much agreement on the parameter as possible, on the assumption that Barak would lose the election and at least both sides would be bound to a course that could lead to an agreement. Arafat wouldn’t even do that, because he didn’t want to be seen conceding anything. The parties continued their talks in Taba, Egypt. They got close, but did not succeed. Arafat never said no; he just couldn’t bring himself to say yes. Pride goeth before the fall.'

edanm 3y ago

You've gotten a wrong impression that Israeli leaders want to end the entire Palestinian ethnicity. That's just... not true. It's demonstrably not true in that Israel has, at various times, agreed to peace deals that would create a two-state solution (which would mean there being a Palestinian state). These deals were rejected by the Palestinians for various reasons. In fact, the government of Gaza, which is Hamas, in contrast with Israel, both says that it wants to destroy Israel and kill all Jews, and also acts on it. So it's the Palestinian side (or at least Gaza's currently-elected leaders) that are trying to destroy the Israeli state. > if you were in the Palestinian position — what you would do. I'd try, to my best ability, to get decent leaders instead of Hamas, who would pursue the betterment of my people and pursue peace. Hamas spends so much of its resources on war with Israel, if they spend more of those resources on its own citizens, they would both be better off, and peace would happen far more quickly.

enterprise_cog 3y ago
Which side has forced the other into a 25x5 mile strip of land? What country doesn’t allow that land to be properly built out? Which country restricts movement, cut off food and water, disabled electricity, and has blocked most aid from entering Gaza? That’s Israel in case you aren’t sure. And those are acts of genocide. So why are you saying Israel doesn’t act on it?
- edanm 3y ago
  First of all, I disagree with your list of things above. But for now, let's focus on this: > And those are acts of genocide. No, those aren't. Just in case I was wrong about this, I went and checked the UN's definition of genocide: > In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Israel is not trying to destroy the Palestinians using any of the above. Their numbers have doubled during the time Israel is around. Which of the things Israel is doing is a genocide as per this definition? Back to your "list of things Israel does", saying that Israel has "forced" Palestinians into a 25x5 mile strip of land is inaccurate. What do you mean forced? This is their land. Israel withdrew from it, they govern it themselves, in what way were they "forced" into it? And in what way does Israel not allow that land to be built out? Hamas isn't exactly big on improving the land, preferring to use their resources to kill Israelis, but that's no the fault of Israel. Again, Israel withdrew from that land and doesn't govern it! They can build things (and have, actually).
  - enterprise_cog 3y ago
    How is not allowing food, water, and aid into Gaza not Israel doing those things? How is the indiscriminate bombings of Gaza not any of those things? You are just denying reality to suit your point. That’s their land? Are you kidding? The entirety of what is called Israel now is their land, along with fellow Jews. Do you think people haven’t read the history of the area? To even say that shows an incredible ignorance of the history of the area. As to your last point, Israel controls what goes in Gaza. They limit the amount of concrete so they can’t build, for example. They control water, Palestinians have to get a permit to build water infrastructure from the Israeli government. They rarely grant them. Rain catchers set up by Palestinians are destroyed by the IDF or settlers. Not to mention, anything they do actually build ends up bombed by the Israelis. To say they don’t like to build things is, once again, an incredible display of ignorance. In fact, since your whole response is filled with such absurdly one sided takes that ignore reality, I have to assume you are trolling.
mseidl 3y ago
Israel supported hamas till 2020. Also the Bush in 2006 backed a coup for hamas. The west bank is the two state solution and it's horrible for palestinians. Even after the olso accords the number of illegal settlements went from 120k to 950k > In fact, the government of Gaza, which is Hamas, in contrast with Israel, both says that it wants to destroy Israel and kill all Jews, and also acts on it. So it's the Palestinian side (or at least Gaza's currently-elected leaders) that are trying to destroy the Israeli state. Hamas changed it's deal to be the emancipation of Palestine. Remember in front of the UN showed a map of israel without palestinians. the new government is so right wing and borderline facist. this video about the itamar ben gvir guy who was labeled as a terrorist and was too extreme for the idf was in the government. It shows some shit. https://youtu.be/OplM9oNmTfQ https://youtu.be/OplM9oNmTfQ
- edanm 3y ago
  > The west bank is the two state solution and it's horrible for palestinians. Even after the olso accords the number of illegal settlements went from 120k to 950k It's not actually a two-state solution as it isn't a completely independent state. I'm definitely against the settlements though. I'd much prefer an actual peace be reached, official borders agreed upon, and therefore the end of settelments. As for Ben Gvir, I agree - he is horrible. He isn't the entire government, but he definitely represents a fringe (though still far too large) point of view. That said, Israeli have been protesting this government for a year, for this among other reasons. And like I said, you have to look at actions, not just at the rhetoric, horrible as the rheotric might be. (And again, I hate Ben Gvir and think it's a travesty he's part of the government. If he were the whole of the government, and the government actually carried out these kinds of actions on Palestinians, then we'd be in a similar situation as Gazans are in right now.)
- mytailorisrich 3y ago
  >Hamas changed it's deal to be the emancipation of Palestine. Don't write in euphemisms. Their aim is the destruction of Israel and the expulsion or slaughter of all Jews. For a start... Supporting them is a criminal offence in a number of countries for a very good reason. So do say if that is what you support so that everything is crystal clear.

perfecthjrjth 3y ago

The deeper problem is not discussed at all: is it possible in a one-state solution (non ethnostate, that is) for Jews to co-exist with Muslims when the latter becomes majority? Past drives the decisions for the present and the future. The other issue heavily discussed is settlements in the West Bank. Settlements have caused, and continue to cause, problems: barriers, scanners, street closures (thereby preventing access for non-Jews), etc. Here, Israel downplays problems faced by locals. This is also a consequence of why it is not possible for Jews and Arabs to live together without barriers, scanners, closures. Arafat scuttled the camp David deal in 2000. Of course, that deal was bad to Palestinians from the latter's perspective. Can they get a better deal than that by NOT 'lay down and die'? From Clinton's biography: 'Finally, Arafat agreed to see Shimon Peres on the thirteenth after Peres had first met with Saeb Erekat. Nothing came of it. As a backstop, the Israelis tried to produce a letter with as much agreement on the parameter as possible, on the assumption that Barak would lose the election and at least both sides would be bound to a course that could lead to an agreement. Arafat wouldn’t even do that, because he didn’t want to be seen conceding anything. The parties continued their talks in Taba, Egypt. They got close, but did not succeed. Arafat never said no; he just couldn’t bring himself to say yes. Pride goeth before the fall.'