3 ms·

Everything you say is true. The only reason Western nations tolerate it, in my view, is because they have witnessed the alternative. To continue your analogy,

Everything you say is true. The only reason Western nations tolerate it, in my view, is because they have witnessed the alternative. To continue your analogy, Israel tried to "graduate" Gaza to adulthood in 2005. The army removed all Jewish settlers and settlements, and all military presence, and left the Gazans to form their own government. Gaza held elections that were judged to be free and fair by international observers. Unfortunately, Gazans elected a Hamas, a recognized terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Don't get me wrong, I can understand if Palestinians feel sore about the creation of Israel on some of the land that they desired for an undivided Palestinian state. But 10 million people live there now, including generations of Jews who have no other home, many of whom were expelled from other Arab countries when Israel was founded. A settlement between Israel and Palestinians will require compromise, but Hamas is not interested in compromise. Hamas dedicates every available resource towards an absolutist goal of destroying Israel. Moreover, Hamas does not see itself as having any responsibility towards the people of Gaza. It builds tunnels to protect its fighters, but considers it the UN's responsibility (through UNRWA) to protect its civilians. In this sense it operates differently from almost any government in the world, in that it is not actually trying to build a society and govern it. In the eyes of Hamas Palestinians are in a war that has been going since 1948, and this war will continue until Israel is destroyed. It considers all of its people refugees and wards of the UN until Israel is destroyed. I have plenty of criticism for Israel, primarily that it builds settlements in the West Bank, sabotaging prospects for a future Palestinian state. But it's hard for me to fault Israel for acting as the legal guardians of the Palestinians when I witness the Palestinian's disinterest in actually building a state that could coexist with Israel, not to mention the means by which they enact their resistance.

1shooner 2y ago
>But it's hard for me to fault Israel for acting as the legal guardians of the Palestinians when I witness the Palestinian's disinterest in actually building a state that could coexist with Israel, not to mention the means by which they enact their resistance. I suspect this is an aspect of the collapse of support for Israel in the US along demographic lines. For many of young Americans' adult lives, Israel's 'guardianship' has been somewhere between anti-democratic and outright oppressive, and certainly not a context in which a people could be expected to 'build a state' for themselves.
- haberman 2y ago
  Why can they build a war machine (tunnels, rockets, etc) but not a civil society? I really am curious what young Americans expect Israel to do.
  - theoldlove 2y ago
    I think young Americans have learned all their lives that ethnostates are bad, especially those based on religion. I think they (we) want a one state solution where Palestinians are full Israeli citizens who can move, work, and vote freely.
    - haberman 2y ago
      I don't think Hamas wants to be citizens of Israel, the western-style democracy. Its charter (even the softened 2017 version) unambiguously rejects recognition of Israel: "There shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity." Hamas wants an Arab Islamic state to rule Palestine from the river to the sea. It doesn't want equal rights and seats in the Knesset, it wants Arab Muslims to govern the land under Islamic law. This is all spelled out explicitly in their charter.
      - racional 2y ago
        I don't think Hamas wants to be citizens of Israel, the western-style democracy. Acknowledged. [The 2017 charter] unambiguously rejects recognition of Israel: "There shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity." By itself this statement certainly sounds unambiguous. But it comes into clear conflict with the language that immediately follows: However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus. Taken together -- I would not call this an "unambiguous" formulation of their position. There's obviously a very clear surface-level conflict between the two passages. Holistically -- the most reasonable paraphrase seems to be: "Hamas rejects the moral legitimacy of the Zionist state. However as a practical matter, it will support the 2SS (along June 4 1967 borders) if this is determined the be the national consensus (among Palestinians), and provided the Right of Return is also granted." The fact that it mentions "borders" is extremely significant, in that this means at least de facto, if not de jure recognition of the State of Israel.
downWidOutaFite 2y ago
The biggest mistake in the last 20 years was when Hamas took power and Netanyahu took an immediate hardline, imposing a crushing blockade, full demonization propaganda, "mowing the lawn" policy, and refused to even try to work with Hamas from day one. But Netanyahu has never wanted peace.
- haberman 2y ago
  How do you work with an organization that is explicitly dedicated to destroying your state and killing your people? Do you just hope they didn't mean the things they wrote in their charter?
  - dunekid 2y ago
    You mean asking for 1967 armistice lines? Maybe you should read the Likid party charter too and understand what they want as their borders? Even though it didn't prevent him working with them to alienate PA though.

1shooner 2y ago

>But it's hard for me to fault Israel for acting as the legal guardians of the Palestinians when I witness the Palestinian's disinterest in actually building a state that could coexist with Israel, not to mention the means by which they enact their resistance. I suspect this is an aspect of the collapse of support for Israel in the US along demographic lines. For many of young Americans' adult lives, Israel's 'guardianship' has been somewhere between anti-democratic and outright oppressive, and certainly not a context in which a people could be expected to 'build a state' for themselves.

haberman 2y ago
Why can they build a war machine (tunnels, rockets, etc) but not a civil society? I really am curious what young Americans expect Israel to do.
- theoldlove 2y ago
  I think young Americans have learned all their lives that ethnostates are bad, especially those based on religion. I think they (we) want a one state solution where Palestinians are full Israeli citizens who can move, work, and vote freely.
  - haberman 2y ago
    I don't think Hamas wants to be citizens of Israel, the western-style democracy. Its charter (even the softened 2017 version) unambiguously rejects recognition of Israel: "There shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity." Hamas wants an Arab Islamic state to rule Palestine from the river to the sea. It doesn't want equal rights and seats in the Knesset, it wants Arab Muslims to govern the land under Islamic law. This is all spelled out explicitly in their charter.
    - racional 2y ago
      I don't think Hamas wants to be citizens of Israel, the western-style democracy. Acknowledged. [The 2017 charter] unambiguously rejects recognition of Israel: "There shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity." By itself this statement certainly sounds unambiguous. But it comes into clear conflict with the language that immediately follows: However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus. Taken together -- I would not call this an "unambiguous" formulation of their position. There's obviously a very clear surface-level conflict between the two passages. Holistically -- the most reasonable paraphrase seems to be: "Hamas rejects the moral legitimacy of the Zionist state. However as a practical matter, it will support the 2SS (along June 4 1967 borders) if this is determined the be the national consensus (among Palestinians), and provided the Right of Return is also granted." The fact that it mentions "borders" is extremely significant, in that this means at least de facto, if not de jure recognition of the State of Israel.

downWidOutaFite 2y ago

The biggest mistake in the last 20 years was when Hamas took power and Netanyahu took an immediate hardline, imposing a crushing blockade, full demonization propaganda, "mowing the lawn" policy, and refused to even try to work with Hamas from day one. But Netanyahu has never wanted peace.

haberman 2y ago
How do you work with an organization that is explicitly dedicated to destroying your state and killing your people? Do you just hope they didn't mean the things they wrote in their charter?
- dunekid 2y ago
  You mean asking for 1967 armistice lines? Maybe you should read the Likid party charter too and understand what they want as their borders? Even though it didn't prevent him working with them to alienate PA though.