4 ms·
> But unless all parties climb down from their respective religious high horses - and that includes Iran - this isn't going to be resolved. So either we accept
by edanm 3y ago
> But unless all parties climb down from their respective religious high horses - and that includes Iran - this isn't going to be resolved. So either we accept the fact that Israel will be forever at war or something will have to change.
Agreed.
> No, that's clear. What conquering was done was after Israel had been founded. But it almost immediately led to the displacement of a large number of people and that alone should have been avoided at all costs.
I mean, yes, but it was mostly conquering because Israel was attacked. The UN did decide to partition the land into a "Jewish" part and "Palestinian" part, and the Palestinians are the ones that rejected it, while the Arab world attacked Israel. It's not that Israel decided to go out a-conquering.
> But it's a done deal and moving Israel isn't going to happen. And even if a fraction would want this where would it go and what would happen to the remainder? It would be another exercise in forced migration.
Yes. That's the reality that the Palestinians have to accept if we have any hope of peace.
> Right, that's absolutely true and I should have been more careful there. But from what I know - and feel free to correct me, you are obviously much better informed - it is mostly the religious fanatics that drive the ongoing settlement program.
That's an interesting question. People become settlers for various reasons; partially it's religious, partially it's ideological, but also partially it's an economic decision - living in the territories is much cheaper (both because of less demand, and also because the government gives economic advantages to living in the territories IIRC, which btw is another way the current government of Israel is undermining peace.)
While the main ideological thrust of wanting a "greater Israel" is religious, it certainly isn't enough, and there's the implicit backing of enough of the population for this to continue. This is driven partially because of security concerns after so many years of strife, partially out of apathy, partially out of some form of "racism", partially at this point some people just consider Palestinians to be the enemy, so everything is justified... it's a mix.
I think if the religious component didn't exist, there wouldn't be a settlement program, but I think for sure a large part of the Israeli population is complicit in the ongoing settler situation, unfortunately.
- jacquesm 3y ago> I mean, yes, but it was mostly conquering because Israel was attacked. The UN did decide to partition the land into a "Jewish" part and "Palestinian" part, and the Palestinians are the ones that rejected it, while the Arab world attacked Israel. It's not that Israel decided to go out a-conquering. That's true. And I could see how a buffer zone would have made good sense after the six day war, but to turn it into a landgrab was effectively not letting a crisis go to waste and that in itself became a serious problem. And you have to appreciate the level of naivety in the UN and in the USA at the time for thinking that such a massive restructuring of a region where there had already been long term stability issues would not lead to some kind of upheaval. I wonder if there was even a single person there who didn't see it coming or whether or not there was some other agenda at work (but that's my cynical side). It's clear that the USA didn't have any real friends in the region (not for lack of trying) and Israel may well have been viewed as some kind of forward base or staging area. The Russians too were making plans to invade and they may well have done so if not for United States unequivocal support for Israel. This is pretty ugly especially given that many Russian Jews had fled to Israel by then. It also had the potential to spiral out of control into a nuclear conflict. > I think if the religious component didn't exist, there wouldn't be a settlement program, but I think for sure a large part of the Israeli population is complicit in the ongoing settler situation, unfortunately. Interesting, ok, thank you for setting me straight on that. It also explains better why the government doesn't act more forcefully against the settlers, effectively they are executing on an undeclared agenda that suits a much larger swath of the Israeli population than I was aware of. Unfortunately that also makes it a much harder problem to solve.
- edanm 3y ago> effectively they are executing on an undeclared agenda that suits a much larger swath of the Israeli population than I was aware of. I mean, I don't want to overstate things. I haven't done statistics on this, and obviously I'm a fairly left/liberal leaning Israeli, so I tend to look on all pro-settlement people fairly critically. I'm giving you my personal sense of things. > It's clear that the USA didn't have any real friends in the region (not for lack of trying) and Israel may well have been viewed as some kind of forward base or staging area. I think US support of Israel was far smaller in the 1960s, back then France was a closer ally iirc. But I wasn't alive back then, I'm not sure how accurate this is. > That's true. And I could see how a buffer zone would have made good sense after the six day war, but to turn it into a landgrab was effectively not letting a crisis go to waste and that in itself became a serious problem. Yes. I wonder what would've happened if we hadn't gotten that land, and the Palestinians had just continued to be refugees of other countries. I'm not sure, but I think it was well understood by the Israeli government at the time that taking that territory, along with the refugees, would be a problem.
- jacquesm 3y agoThanks again for the conversation, it has definitely given a lot of valuable background and insights. If you ever want to mail off-site then my email is in my profile. Best of luck there and stay safe!
- edanm 3y agoThanks to you as well. I've been a fan of yours on this site for many years :)