5 ms·

Two states along the 1967 borders. If Israel and the US agreed to this, the international community would overwhelmingly support it. This would be more than eno

Two states along the 1967 borders. If Israel and the US agreed to this, the international community would overwhelmingly support it. This would be more than enough to guarantee Israel's security.

shashashasha___ 3y ago
[flagged]
- hbt 3y ago
  When Israel controls the food intake of a population (The Gaza Diet) through a complete blockade, Israel doesn't get to claim they withdrew or respect the sovereignty of the Palestinian people. Israel tried to do in Gaza what they did in the West Bank. Carve it up, control key resources, create settlements through terrorism and encroach daily on Palestinian territory. Their settler-colonial crimes are well documented in the West Bank but Israel didn't have enough people and resources at the time to carry crimes both in the West Bank and Gaza.
  - nailer 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - Hikikomori 3y ago
      Israel controls what and who moved through the Egypt border. Is that land area enough to feed their population? Jews can't colonize an area where they're literally kicking people out of their homes?
      - nailer 3y ago
        Egypt could open it's border tomorrow if it wished to. Egypt doesn't wish to. Good question. We do know Hamas has very little interest in meeting the needs of Gaza's population - there are no wells, aid money is taken for weapons and for the personal wealth of it's billionaire leaders instead of it's populace. We'll never know if Hamas can feed Gazans because it puts very little effort into doing so. Land in Israel was purchased from Ottomans and Arabs before 1948, and gained after winning wars declared by Arab states after 1948.
        Hikikomori 3y ago
        You think Israel would have a blockade if the Egypt border crossing was not under their control? Why don't you read the first section here. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafah_Border_Crossing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafah_Border_Crossing Are you trying to say that not a single Palesitinan has been displaced? The nakba is largely why we have these problems today, and it's still going on.
        nailer 3y ago
        Again: Egypt could open it's border tomorrow if it wished to. Egypt doesn't wish to. Hence the agreement with Israel. > The nakba is largely why we have these problems today Not quite, the displacement happened, but that's a symptom of the cause: the wars declared by Arab states after 1948 mentioned in the comment you're replying to. Likewise Poland and France still own land gained from Germany after WW2.
        Hikikomori 3y ago
        Do you believe that Israel would allow them to open the border and decide themselves what can go over? Israel have de facto control over this border as they decide what goods and which people can move through it. Saying that Gaza is not under a blockade because they have an Egyptian border is meaningless and disingenuous. So it's just fine if they stole some land and kicked the people out? They should just be happy with losing everything they have. Is Israel still at war with the west bank? As they're still doing the same thing, and under such circumstances you say it's ok.
        hluska 3y ago
        Your first question cannot be answered because Egypt has always refused Palestinian refugees. Gaza was Egyptian territory but Egypt does not want them back. Egypt’s reasons vary. One stated reason was that they fear that Palestinian refugees will attack Israel from Egyptian soil and threaten the 40 year peace between the nations. Another reason is that Egypt had its own problem with extremists and accused Hamas of backing them. A third reason which we really shouldn’t overlook is that Egypt and Israel want to improve their economic relationship and increase bilateral trade to $700 million a year. Fourth, Egypt also brings up the concepts of displacement and right of return but that’s a level way beyond my understanding so I’ll insert it as a fact but cannot speak to it in any way. International law is such that Israel would have a lot of difficulty keeping Rafah Rafah (for lack of a better word to describe that clusterfuck of a border) if Egypt was interested in fighting for its integrity. They’re not. Jordan has also always refused Palestinian refugees. Finally, Israel has made many overtures for peace. Those overtures have destroyed political careers and resulted in at least one assassination. Despite the overtures, the attacks still continued. I’m not willing to engage unless you can tell me about some of these Israeli attempts at peace. Show me that you have some understanding of the other side and we can talk. But otherwise, I get very bored without balance.
    - amluto 3y ago
      > Finally, Jewish people cannot colonise an area they’ve been for 3000 years. I’m not sure what that means. I’m a person. I have ancestors who were likely [0] forced out of at least four identifiable countries. Many if not most Americans are in a similar position. Does this mean that my descendants could “colonize” places where my ancestors never lived but could not “colonize” places where they did not live? If I moved, permanently, to Antarctica, Israel, Gaza, the West Bank, New York, England, Russia, Ukraine, Mars, or Argentina, would I be colonizing, “returning”, etc? Does the answer really depend on where my ancestors lived 50 or 100 or 3000 years ago? I do think there’s something to be said for someone moving to where their recent ancestors live or lived, but this gets complicated very very quickly, especially when political borders move in the mean time. I once visited the house in a foreign country where some of ancestors lived in the 1930s, from which they were quite aggressively removed. I’m pretty sure that if I moved back there by force, I would be doing something very very wrong. [0] I say “likely” because some degree of extrapolation is needed as to what happened tens of generations ago. And the number is likely much larger than 4.
      - nailer 3y ago
        > Does this mean that my descendants could “colonize” places where my ancestors never lived but could not “colonize” places where they did not live? I think you have a typo there (both options are where your ancestors didn't live). Assuming you meant: > Does this mean that my descendants could “colonize” places where my ancestors never lived but could not “colonize” places where they did live? Then yes. The first case - moving to a new country and sending people from your own country to live there - is colonisation - see https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/colonize https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/englis... In the second case, particularly if your community has been there for a few thousand years, you're just buying a house.
        runarberg 3y ago
        I still don’t understand the logic behind: > Jewish people cannot colonize an area they’ve been for 3000 years. As I understand it, Palestine used to be a majority Jewish area. Their creation myth states that they migrated there from Egypt to escape slavery and oppression. However Jewish people never mass migrated from Palestine like they mass migrated from Egypt. Some Palestinians simply gradually converted religion with during varying colonization, first to Christianity during Roman and Byzantine colonization, then to Islam during Arab and Ottoman colonization and today, most Palestinians are Muslim while Christian minority exists. Prior to 1948 there were even still Jewish Palestinians. Jesus Christ him self was even a Palestinian Jew. While this is happening, some Jews—instead of converted—migrated from Palestine to Europe, where they were persecuted for centuries. While in Europe, they still managed to intermarry and doubtless some Europeans even converted to Judaism. These immigrants became part of Europe and European heritage, and after so many generations they became European Jews. This is why I—and others—consider Zionism to be a specific case of the more general European colonial enterprise. Zionists are mostly European or European descendants who migrated to lands that wasn’t theirs, made it theirs, and displaced the indigenous population from it. In my opinion this is the worst possible case of colonialism.
    - wahnfrieden 3y ago
      Israel controls the Rafah border crossing via treaties with Egypt. Egypt does not have autonomous control over that crossing, unless they break treaties.
      - nailer 3y ago
        Egypt would not have signed those treaties if Egypt wanted an open border with Gaza.
hluska 3y ago
As one of many examples in the last several decades, the Oslo accords were moving in that direction. Hamas stepped up the violence to such an extent that the death by terrorism rate in Israel increased almost 600% and Itzhak Rabin was assassinated. The public isn’t sure what happened to Yassar Arafat but it didn’t end well for him either. Rabin’s language was changing quickly and given another few years, entity would have likely changed to state. We’re looking for ideas that end in less violence and where the leaders involved aren’t assassinated.
- yterdy 3y ago
  >Itzhak Rabin was assassinated By who? Your phrasing suggests it was a part of Hamas' terrorism campaign. Central to the conflict is the Israeli refusal to accept responsibility for the current state of affairs, or to recognize any conception of proportionality. "We f*cked up, and we have not treated Palestinian life as equal to Israeli life," would go a long way towards reconciliation, but Israel will never admit wrongdoing even in the face of actually having committed wrongdoing.
nec4b 3y ago
Unfortunately the Palestinians don't agree with that solution.
- Aerbil313 3y ago
  Pretty understandable, since all of Israel is stolen land, while Jews, Christians and Muslims were living in the are peacefully before that in the Islamic era. HN doesn't seem to be aware of that the Nakba happened. Here's a demonstration of the "settlement" process from Guardian: https://youtu.be/ksnLom8OD9E?si=aYvcLqcLQK960fbx https://youtu.be/ksnLom8OD9E?si=aYvcLqcLQK960fbx
  - wyiske 3y ago
    You have a very simplistic view of the history. Many Arabs actually aren’t native to the land either, they moved there for work that the new Jewish immigrants provided. In fact there was significant mutual cooperation and benefit. Land wasn’t stolen either, but bought after the Ottomans empire fell and it became legal for Jews to buy Muslim land (the ottomans had some nasty rules). Regarding the 700k Palestinians leaving in 1948, there was no historical order to evict anyone from outside the future Israeli borders, fact is they fled either from fear or through encouragement to leave by the 5 arab countries which declared war on Israel. Many millions of people have fled war, vastly more numerous than this, but yet that is the most infamous.
    - Aerbil313 3y ago
      If you were seen the video I think you’d very easily understand what “stolen” means.
  - nec4b 3y ago
    >> Pretty understandable, since all of Israel is stolen land, while Jews, Christians and Muslims were living in the are peacefully before that in the Islamic era. When arabs conquered on colonized those lands they were anything but peaceful. For that islamic era to occure, hundreds of thousands had to die.
- 3y ago

Two states along the 1967 borders. If Israel and the US agreed to this, the international community would overwhelmingly support it. This would be more than enough to guarantee Israel's security.

shashashasha___ 3y ago

[flagged]

hbt 3y ago
When Israel controls the food intake of a population (The Gaza Diet) through a complete blockade, Israel doesn't get to claim they withdrew or respect the sovereignty of the Palestinian people. Israel tried to do in Gaza what they did in the West Bank. Carve it up, control key resources, create settlements through terrorism and encroach daily on Palestinian territory. Their settler-colonial crimes are well documented in the West Bank but Israel didn't have enough people and resources at the time to carry crimes both in the West Bank and Gaza.
- nailer 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - Hikikomori 3y ago
    Israel controls what and who moved through the Egypt border. Is that land area enough to feed their population? Jews can't colonize an area where they're literally kicking people out of their homes?
    - nailer 3y ago
      Egypt could open it's border tomorrow if it wished to. Egypt doesn't wish to. Good question. We do know Hamas has very little interest in meeting the needs of Gaza's population - there are no wells, aid money is taken for weapons and for the personal wealth of it's billionaire leaders instead of it's populace. We'll never know if Hamas can feed Gazans because it puts very little effort into doing so. Land in Israel was purchased from Ottomans and Arabs before 1948, and gained after winning wars declared by Arab states after 1948.
      - Hikikomori 3y ago
        You think Israel would have a blockade if the Egypt border crossing was not under their control? Why don't you read the first section here. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafah_Border_Crossing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafah_Border_Crossing Are you trying to say that not a single Palesitinan has been displaced? The nakba is largely why we have these problems today, and it's still going on.
        nailer 3y ago
        Again: Egypt could open it's border tomorrow if it wished to. Egypt doesn't wish to. Hence the agreement with Israel. > The nakba is largely why we have these problems today Not quite, the displacement happened, but that's a symptom of the cause: the wars declared by Arab states after 1948 mentioned in the comment you're replying to. Likewise Poland and France still own land gained from Germany after WW2.
        Hikikomori 3y ago
        Do you believe that Israel would allow them to open the border and decide themselves what can go over? Israel have de facto control over this border as they decide what goods and which people can move through it. Saying that Gaza is not under a blockade because they have an Egyptian border is meaningless and disingenuous. So it's just fine if they stole some land and kicked the people out? They should just be happy with losing everything they have. Is Israel still at war with the west bank? As they're still doing the same thing, and under such circumstances you say it's ok.
        hluska 3y ago
        Your first question cannot be answered because Egypt has always refused Palestinian refugees. Gaza was Egyptian territory but Egypt does not want them back. Egypt’s reasons vary. One stated reason was that they fear that Palestinian refugees will attack Israel from Egyptian soil and threaten the 40 year peace between the nations. Another reason is that Egypt had its own problem with extremists and accused Hamas of backing them. A third reason which we really shouldn’t overlook is that Egypt and Israel want to improve their economic relationship and increase bilateral trade to $700 million a year. Fourth, Egypt also brings up the concepts of displacement and right of return but that’s a level way beyond my understanding so I’ll insert it as a fact but cannot speak to it in any way. International law is such that Israel would have a lot of difficulty keeping Rafah Rafah (for lack of a better word to describe that clusterfuck of a border) if Egypt was interested in fighting for its integrity. They’re not. Jordan has also always refused Palestinian refugees. Finally, Israel has made many overtures for peace. Those overtures have destroyed political careers and resulted in at least one assassination. Despite the overtures, the attacks still continued. I’m not willing to engage unless you can tell me about some of these Israeli attempts at peace. Show me that you have some understanding of the other side and we can talk. But otherwise, I get very bored without balance.
  - amluto 3y ago
    > Finally, Jewish people cannot colonise an area they’ve been for 3000 years. I’m not sure what that means. I’m a person. I have ancestors who were likely [0] forced out of at least four identifiable countries. Many if not most Americans are in a similar position. Does this mean that my descendants could “colonize” places where my ancestors never lived but could not “colonize” places where they did not live? If I moved, permanently, to Antarctica, Israel, Gaza, the West Bank, New York, England, Russia, Ukraine, Mars, or Argentina, would I be colonizing, “returning”, etc? Does the answer really depend on where my ancestors lived 50 or 100 or 3000 years ago? I do think there’s something to be said for someone moving to where their recent ancestors live or lived, but this gets complicated very very quickly, especially when political borders move in the mean time. I once visited the house in a foreign country where some of ancestors lived in the 1930s, from which they were quite aggressively removed. I’m pretty sure that if I moved back there by force, I would be doing something very very wrong. [0] I say “likely” because some degree of extrapolation is needed as to what happened tens of generations ago. And the number is likely much larger than 4.
    - nailer 3y ago
      > Does this mean that my descendants could “colonize” places where my ancestors never lived but could not “colonize” places where they did not live? I think you have a typo there (both options are where your ancestors didn't live). Assuming you meant: > Does this mean that my descendants could “colonize” places where my ancestors never lived but could not “colonize” places where they did live? Then yes. The first case - moving to a new country and sending people from your own country to live there - is colonisation - see https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/colonize https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/englis... In the second case, particularly if your community has been there for a few thousand years, you're just buying a house.
      - runarberg 3y ago
        I still don’t understand the logic behind: > Jewish people cannot colonize an area they’ve been for 3000 years. As I understand it, Palestine used to be a majority Jewish area. Their creation myth states that they migrated there from Egypt to escape slavery and oppression. However Jewish people never mass migrated from Palestine like they mass migrated from Egypt. Some Palestinians simply gradually converted religion with during varying colonization, first to Christianity during Roman and Byzantine colonization, then to Islam during Arab and Ottoman colonization and today, most Palestinians are Muslim while Christian minority exists. Prior to 1948 there were even still Jewish Palestinians. Jesus Christ him self was even a Palestinian Jew. While this is happening, some Jews—instead of converted—migrated from Palestine to Europe, where they were persecuted for centuries. While in Europe, they still managed to intermarry and doubtless some Europeans even converted to Judaism. These immigrants became part of Europe and European heritage, and after so many generations they became European Jews. This is why I—and others—consider Zionism to be a specific case of the more general European colonial enterprise. Zionists are mostly European or European descendants who migrated to lands that wasn’t theirs, made it theirs, and displaced the indigenous population from it. In my opinion this is the worst possible case of colonialism.
  - wahnfrieden 3y ago
    Israel controls the Rafah border crossing via treaties with Egypt. Egypt does not have autonomous control over that crossing, unless they break treaties.
    - nailer 3y ago
      Egypt would not have signed those treaties if Egypt wanted an open border with Gaza.

hluska 3y ago

As one of many examples in the last several decades, the Oslo accords were moving in that direction. Hamas stepped up the violence to such an extent that the death by terrorism rate in Israel increased almost 600% and Itzhak Rabin was assassinated. The public isn’t sure what happened to Yassar Arafat but it didn’t end well for him either. Rabin’s language was changing quickly and given another few years, entity would have likely changed to state. We’re looking for ideas that end in less violence and where the leaders involved aren’t assassinated.

yterdy 3y ago
>Itzhak Rabin was assassinated By who? Your phrasing suggests it was a part of Hamas' terrorism campaign. Central to the conflict is the Israeli refusal to accept responsibility for the current state of affairs, or to recognize any conception of proportionality. "We f*cked up, and we have not treated Palestinian life as equal to Israeli life," would go a long way towards reconciliation, but Israel will never admit wrongdoing even in the face of actually having committed wrongdoing.

nec4b 3y ago

Unfortunately the Palestinians don't agree with that solution.

Aerbil313 3y ago
Pretty understandable, since all of Israel is stolen land, while Jews, Christians and Muslims were living in the are peacefully before that in the Islamic era. HN doesn't seem to be aware of that the Nakba happened. Here's a demonstration of the "settlement" process from Guardian: https://youtu.be/ksnLom8OD9E?si=aYvcLqcLQK960fbx https://youtu.be/ksnLom8OD9E?si=aYvcLqcLQK960fbx
- wyiske 3y ago
  You have a very simplistic view of the history. Many Arabs actually aren’t native to the land either, they moved there for work that the new Jewish immigrants provided. In fact there was significant mutual cooperation and benefit. Land wasn’t stolen either, but bought after the Ottomans empire fell and it became legal for Jews to buy Muslim land (the ottomans had some nasty rules). Regarding the 700k Palestinians leaving in 1948, there was no historical order to evict anyone from outside the future Israeli borders, fact is they fled either from fear or through encouragement to leave by the 5 arab countries which declared war on Israel. Many millions of people have fled war, vastly more numerous than this, but yet that is the most infamous.
  - Aerbil313 3y ago
    If you were seen the video I think you’d very easily understand what “stolen” means.
- nec4b 3y ago
  >> Pretty understandable, since all of Israel is stolen land, while Jews, Christians and Muslims were living in the are peacefully before that in the Islamic era. When arabs conquered on colonized those lands they were anything but peaceful. For that islamic era to occure, hundreds of thousands had to die.
3y ago