5 ms·

I have not lived in Israel for most of the last 20 years, but I do have family and friends there. I also know plenty of both Israelis and Palestinians moderates

by ido 3y ago

I have not lived in Israel for most of the last 20 years, but I do have family and friends there. I also know plenty of both Israelis and Palestinians moderates, but they are unfortunately the small minority on both sides.

edanm 3y ago
I don't think it's fair to say that Israeli moderates are the minority - though that entirely depends on what you mean by "Israeli moderates". I think the majority do not have any "territorial ambition" and would usually happily agree to a two state solution peace agreement, including giving up the WB, as long as security to Israel was guaranteed. We are very far from this being realistic because of a lack of leaders on both sides, and because the security guarantees are incredibly hard.
- kybernetikos 3y ago
  > as long as security to Israel was guaranteed. That idea which seems so reasonable can encompass a lot of very unreasonable positions. Total security is never guaranteed, and many evils have been committed in pursuit of it.
  - nahumfarchi 3y ago
    The US and Canada seem to be doing fine. France and Germany. Thailand and Laos (as far as I know). Your statement is vague and does not seem to take into account the actual realities of living in perpetual insecurity.
    - kybernetikos 3y ago
      All of those countries have had terrorist attacks in the last 5 years. While their level of security is generally high, they do not experience total security. You cannot be completely secure without total control or elimination of anyone who might disagree with you. Of course I accept that some actions are legitimate in some places to achieve a higher level of security for the people, but it always requires careful consideration and is not something for which just any sacrifice can be made without further thought.
  - edanm 3y ago
    I agree that "Total Security" is never guaranteed, but we're talking many orders of magnitude between the current situation and Total Security. It is just a true fact of the world that if Israel were to let down its guard even a little, many Israelis would be killed. We saw the proof of that on October 7th.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > It is just a true fact of the world that if Israel were to let down its guard even a little, many Israelis would be killed. It is a true fact of life that many Israelis are killed, as a direct result of the Israeli government's long-term policy of actively assuring that the most violent and extreme Palestinian faction possible is reinforced and strengthened at every turn (starting with its original creation) to maintain internal Palestinian divisions and provide a pretext to deflect domestic and international pressure to make peace.
      - edanm 3y ago
        Yes, that was a very very mistaken plan by Netanyahu and I hope (and think) he will pay for it with this being, finally, the end of his political life. That said, what would've been your alternative? For Israel to refuse to cooperate at all with Hamas the last fifteen years? To prevent them receiving any outside money from Qatar? To not allow any Gazans to work in Israel? That's what would've needed to happen to "not reinforce Hamas", and I have a feeling that had Israel done that, it would've received more condemnation.
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        > Yes, that was a very very mistaken plan by Netanyahu While Netanyahu has taken it run with it for quite a while, it actually predates Netanyahu having a significant role related to it, back to the original formation of Hamas, which Israel fostered in Gaza for much the same reason as Netanyahu has repeatedly actively fostered since. > That said, what would've been your alternative? Not actively working to antagonize the Palestinian population, disrupt the election campaigns, and make the Fatah-led administration look weak and complicit (by blocking campaigns directly, carrying out a targeted campaign of detention of Palestinian politicians, and directly interfering with ballot distribution and other administration preparations for the vote) as a deliberate strategy to secure a victory by the primary opposition -- Hamas -- in the 2006 Palestinian elections. Not refusing to cooperate in subsequent PA-Hamas agreed Palestinian elections (where Israeli cooperation is required because numerous voters still live under Israeli administration) to freeze the divided status quo in place, and not cutting off peace talks because of an agreement between the PA and Hamas to form a unity government, hold elections, and participate together in peace negotiations, for the same purpose. Among other things.

by ido 3y ago

edanm 3y ago

I don't think it's fair to say that Israeli moderates are the minority - though that entirely depends on what you mean by "Israeli moderates". I think the majority do not have any "territorial ambition" and would usually happily agree to a two state solution peace agreement, including giving up the WB, as long as security to Israel was guaranteed. We are very far from this being realistic because of a lack of leaders on both sides, and because the security guarantees are incredibly hard.

kybernetikos 3y ago
> as long as security to Israel was guaranteed. That idea which seems so reasonable can encompass a lot of very unreasonable positions. Total security is never guaranteed, and many evils have been committed in pursuit of it.
- nahumfarchi 3y ago
  The US and Canada seem to be doing fine. France and Germany. Thailand and Laos (as far as I know). Your statement is vague and does not seem to take into account the actual realities of living in perpetual insecurity.
  - kybernetikos 3y ago
    All of those countries have had terrorist attacks in the last 5 years. While their level of security is generally high, they do not experience total security. You cannot be completely secure without total control or elimination of anyone who might disagree with you. Of course I accept that some actions are legitimate in some places to achieve a higher level of security for the people, but it always requires careful consideration and is not something for which just any sacrifice can be made without further thought.
- edanm 3y ago
  I agree that "Total Security" is never guaranteed, but we're talking many orders of magnitude between the current situation and Total Security. It is just a true fact of the world that if Israel were to let down its guard even a little, many Israelis would be killed. We saw the proof of that on October 7th.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > It is just a true fact of the world that if Israel were to let down its guard even a little, many Israelis would be killed. It is a true fact of life that many Israelis are killed, as a direct result of the Israeli government's long-term policy of actively assuring that the most violent and extreme Palestinian faction possible is reinforced and strengthened at every turn (starting with its original creation) to maintain internal Palestinian divisions and provide a pretext to deflect domestic and international pressure to make peace.
    - edanm 3y ago
      Yes, that was a very very mistaken plan by Netanyahu and I hope (and think) he will pay for it with this being, finally, the end of his political life. That said, what would've been your alternative? For Israel to refuse to cooperate at all with Hamas the last fifteen years? To prevent them receiving any outside money from Qatar? To not allow any Gazans to work in Israel? That's what would've needed to happen to "not reinforce Hamas", and I have a feeling that had Israel done that, it would've received more condemnation.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        > Yes, that was a very very mistaken plan by Netanyahu While Netanyahu has taken it run with it for quite a while, it actually predates Netanyahu having a significant role related to it, back to the original formation of Hamas, which Israel fostered in Gaza for much the same reason as Netanyahu has repeatedly actively fostered since. > That said, what would've been your alternative? Not actively working to antagonize the Palestinian population, disrupt the election campaigns, and make the Fatah-led administration look weak and complicit (by blocking campaigns directly, carrying out a targeted campaign of detention of Palestinian politicians, and directly interfering with ballot distribution and other administration preparations for the vote) as a deliberate strategy to secure a victory by the primary opposition -- Hamas -- in the 2006 Palestinian elections. Not refusing to cooperate in subsequent PA-Hamas agreed Palestinian elections (where Israeli cooperation is required because numerous voters still live under Israeli administration) to freeze the divided status quo in place, and not cutting off peace talks because of an agreement between the PA and Hamas to form a unity government, hold elections, and participate together in peace negotiations, for the same purpose. Among other things.