4 ms·

It's more complicated than that. Israel did not administer Gaza nor does it administer PA controlled territories in the West Bank. Last I checked the question

by YZF 2y ago

It's more complicated than that. Israel did not administer Gaza nor does it administer PA controlled territories in the West Bank. Last I checked the question of democracy didn't expand to occupied territories. When the US occupied Afghanistan or Iraq (or German or Japan) those countries did not get a vote in the US elections. Puerto Rico also don't get a vote in the US? Handing over the west bank to Palestinians isn't an option because: a) the world would not recognize that as the end of Israel's occupation just like it didn't accept Israel's handing Gaza over as the end of the occupation. b) That area would be taken over by Hamas just like Gaza was taken over and would be staging ground for launching attacks into Israel just like Oct 7th or the rocket barrages that came from Gaza over the years since Israel's withdrawal. The West Bank has a significantly longer border with Israel which would put most major Israeli cities minutes of driving and within rocket/mortar range. c) The option of annexing the West Bank and Gaza and making everyone citizens is also not acceptable to either the Palestinians or the international community. This really answers your unasked question of why is this area under military occupation for so long (IIRC Germany and Japan were also controlled for a pretty long time but anyways). Initially Israel needed the area so Arab armies aren't sitting 10 minutes from its population centers (when the entire Arab world was still at war with Israel). Now that there's peace with Jordan and Egypt it's more of a Palestinians aren't willing to make peace in exchange for this land, they don't want to become Israelis, and there's no realistic option that ensures both the safety of Israelis and their rights and the rights of Palestinians. After all this you might be right to complain about e.g. settlements in the west bank. And there I'd finally agree with you. Israel should not allow Israelis to live in the west bank before it's final status is determined. That said, it wouldn't really make the problem that easier to solve, if anything it is taking us closer to a day where that area is annexed and Palestinians do become Israeli citizens.

mardifoufs 2y ago
Israel has had complete control over Gaza's borders, even the Egyptian border side. And that's since the 1980s, before Hamas even was a thing. That means that Israel either was blockading or "administrated" the border if we want to sugarcoat it. I'm not sure about you but that sure sounds like either an act of war, or occupation. Also, settlers in the west bank aren't just a "that sucks" type of thing. It shows exactly the intentions of Israel once any territory is pacified. Which is exactly what happened to the west bank since they stopped fighting back.
- YZF 2y ago
  Israel had no control of the Egyptian border to Gaza since it withdrew in 2005. That is a fact. You got the settler vs. Palestinian violence in exactly the wrong order. Before the first Intifadah there were hardly any settlers in the west bank. The settlement movement is a response to Palestinian violence, not something that happened because the violence stopped. Palestinian violence against Israelis and Jews predates 1967 (when the west bank was occupied from Jordan) and predates 1948 (When the state of Israel was created).
  - 8note 2y ago
    Alternatively, the settler movement has its own start, unrelated to violence, and will continue whether there's violence or peace.
  - mardifoufs 2y ago
    Yes and Israeli violence against Palestinians also dates from 1948. In fact the Israelis killed much more Palestinians than the reverse. Also I don't get your point. So they started settling because of the intifada? That doesn't make sense, and I've never seen settlers claim that it was related to anything expect that they see it as their god given land regardless of what happens to those who live there already. I mean it's pretty simple, when the Fath ceased armed combat, the settlers came and Israel did nothing expect provide IDF protection to them. That's what the Palestinians got for trying to actually normalize the situation and create the PA and even fight their own little civil war against extremists (Fath vs Hamas): unrelenting settlement. I'm sure the settlers wouldn't be so brazen if Hamas was also on the west bank. Funnily enough though, Israel ministers were also openly discussing allowing settlements again in last year in Gaza. Still, it's very weird to see settlement as a "oh well that sucks but what can we do" when Israel could stop it any moment they want like they did in 2005. Oddly enough, only Israel gets to have literal conquest and blatant disregard for international law and even their allies marked as an oopsie.
    - YZF 2y ago
      The Israeli right wing is supports (to some extent) settlement in the west bank and the rise of the Israeli right is related to Palestinian violence. That's the correlation/connection. Israel's left wing, that used to support a two state solution and peace, has ceased to exist as a direct result of Palestinian terrorism. You story doesn't jive with the facts. The period between 1967 and the mid eighties was the least violent period in the west bank. Palestinians worked in Israel. Israelies shopped in the west bank. That period also had virtually no settlement activity in the west bank. The extreme right in Israel sees settlement as the "proper" answer to Palestinian violence. That's another thread connecting these things. But the government that enables this was literally brought into power by Hamas. When did Fatah cease armed combat exactly according to you? Are you talking about the Oslo agreements and the return of Arafat to Ramallah? I'm not following you (and I used to live in Israel during those times so I'm not making stuff up). Hamas is also in the west bank so your other statement doesn't compute either. Israel has dismantled settlements in Sinai, and in Gaza, as part of an agreement. During the Oslo process there was support in Israel to dismantle those as part of a peace agreement. The Palestinians didn't want peace (Arafat thought he'd be murdered if he makes peace with the Israelis and anyways Hamas and the PIJ wouldn't abide which makes the whole thing moot).
etc-hosts 2y ago
> if anything it is taking us closer to a day where that area is annexed and Palestinians do become Israeli citizens I doubt the current state of Israel would ever make the Palestinians full Israeli citizens, because then Israel would no longer be majority Jewish. Being known as the Jewish homeland is very important to Israel.
- YZF 2y ago
  They would. Even with the current numbers Israel still maintains Jewish majority and also the proponents of this annexation also say it'll come hand in hand with a "de-radicalization" program. There are other tools Israel can leverage (e.g. a constitution) to ensure Israel remains the Jewish homeland while making Palestinians full citizens. These don't have to contradict. Either way the Palestinians have no interest in being equal citizens in the country of Israel so it's more or less a moot point, for now.
  - legulere 2y ago
    Previous negotiations like the 2000 Camp David Summit have failed because (among other points) the right of return: > Almost all Israeli Jews oppose a literal right of return for Palestinian refugees on the grounds that allowing such an influx of Palestinians would render Jews a minority in Israel, thus transforming Israel into an Arab-Muslim state. In addition to the right-wing and center, a majority of the Israeli left, including the far-left, opposes the right of return on these grounds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_right_of_return https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_right_of_return
    - YZF 2y ago
      That is correct. My scenario of annexation does not include the right of return. Israel is never going to allow that.
- Georgelemental 2y ago
  > then Israel would no longer be majority Jewish It still would, as long as the Gaza strip is not also included (West Bank only).

by YZF 2y ago

mardifoufs 2y ago

Israel has had complete control over Gaza's borders, even the Egyptian border side. And that's since the 1980s, before Hamas even was a thing. That means that Israel either was blockading or "administrated" the border if we want to sugarcoat it. I'm not sure about you but that sure sounds like either an act of war, or occupation. Also, settlers in the west bank aren't just a "that sucks" type of thing. It shows exactly the intentions of Israel once any territory is pacified. Which is exactly what happened to the west bank since they stopped fighting back.

YZF 2y ago
Israel had no control of the Egyptian border to Gaza since it withdrew in 2005. That is a fact. You got the settler vs. Palestinian violence in exactly the wrong order. Before the first Intifadah there were hardly any settlers in the west bank. The settlement movement is a response to Palestinian violence, not something that happened because the violence stopped. Palestinian violence against Israelis and Jews predates 1967 (when the west bank was occupied from Jordan) and predates 1948 (When the state of Israel was created).
- 8note 2y ago
  Alternatively, the settler movement has its own start, unrelated to violence, and will continue whether there's violence or peace.
- mardifoufs 2y ago
  Yes and Israeli violence against Palestinians also dates from 1948. In fact the Israelis killed much more Palestinians than the reverse. Also I don't get your point. So they started settling because of the intifada? That doesn't make sense, and I've never seen settlers claim that it was related to anything expect that they see it as their god given land regardless of what happens to those who live there already. I mean it's pretty simple, when the Fath ceased armed combat, the settlers came and Israel did nothing expect provide IDF protection to them. That's what the Palestinians got for trying to actually normalize the situation and create the PA and even fight their own little civil war against extremists (Fath vs Hamas): unrelenting settlement. I'm sure the settlers wouldn't be so brazen if Hamas was also on the west bank. Funnily enough though, Israel ministers were also openly discussing allowing settlements again in last year in Gaza. Still, it's very weird to see settlement as a "oh well that sucks but what can we do" when Israel could stop it any moment they want like they did in 2005. Oddly enough, only Israel gets to have literal conquest and blatant disregard for international law and even their allies marked as an oopsie.
  - YZF 2y ago
    The Israeli right wing is supports (to some extent) settlement in the west bank and the rise of the Israeli right is related to Palestinian violence. That's the correlation/connection. Israel's left wing, that used to support a two state solution and peace, has ceased to exist as a direct result of Palestinian terrorism. You story doesn't jive with the facts. The period between 1967 and the mid eighties was the least violent period in the west bank. Palestinians worked in Israel. Israelies shopped in the west bank. That period also had virtually no settlement activity in the west bank. The extreme right in Israel sees settlement as the "proper" answer to Palestinian violence. That's another thread connecting these things. But the government that enables this was literally brought into power by Hamas. When did Fatah cease armed combat exactly according to you? Are you talking about the Oslo agreements and the return of Arafat to Ramallah? I'm not following you (and I used to live in Israel during those times so I'm not making stuff up). Hamas is also in the west bank so your other statement doesn't compute either. Israel has dismantled settlements in Sinai, and in Gaza, as part of an agreement. During the Oslo process there was support in Israel to dismantle those as part of a peace agreement. The Palestinians didn't want peace (Arafat thought he'd be murdered if he makes peace with the Israelis and anyways Hamas and the PIJ wouldn't abide which makes the whole thing moot).

etc-hosts 2y ago

> if anything it is taking us closer to a day where that area is annexed and Palestinians do become Israeli citizens I doubt the current state of Israel would ever make the Palestinians full Israeli citizens, because then Israel would no longer be majority Jewish. Being known as the Jewish homeland is very important to Israel.

YZF 2y ago
They would. Even with the current numbers Israel still maintains Jewish majority and also the proponents of this annexation also say it'll come hand in hand with a "de-radicalization" program. There are other tools Israel can leverage (e.g. a constitution) to ensure Israel remains the Jewish homeland while making Palestinians full citizens. These don't have to contradict. Either way the Palestinians have no interest in being equal citizens in the country of Israel so it's more or less a moot point, for now.
- legulere 2y ago
  Previous negotiations like the 2000 Camp David Summit have failed because (among other points) the right of return: > Almost all Israeli Jews oppose a literal right of return for Palestinian refugees on the grounds that allowing such an influx of Palestinians would render Jews a minority in Israel, thus transforming Israel into an Arab-Muslim state. In addition to the right-wing and center, a majority of the Israeli left, including the far-left, opposes the right of return on these grounds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_right_of_return https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_right_of_return
  - YZF 2y ago
    That is correct. My scenario of annexation does not include the right of return. Israel is never going to allow that.
Georgelemental 2y ago
> then Israel would no longer be majority Jewish It still would, as long as the Gaza strip is not also included (West Bank only).