4 ms·

Benjamin Netanyahu has generally been averse to war over the years, often avoiding major conflicts. However, following the debacle on Oct 7th, there has been in

Benjamin Netanyahu has generally been averse to war over the years, often avoiding major conflicts. However, following the debacle on Oct 7th, there has been increasing pressure for his resignation. In this context, the current conflict may serve his interests. Netanyahu is aware that once the conflict ends, he will face tough questions and likely need to step down.

Chris2048 2y ago
Do you consider the occupation of Palestinian territory previous to Oct 7th to be major conflict?
- Protostome 2y ago
  Firstly, the territory in question is contested. Although I acknowledge that it is occupied—the West Bank by Jordan and Gaza by Egypt—historically, these areas were never considered Palestinian. To clarify, I fully support the establishment of a Palestinian state across all of these territories with East Jerusalem as its capital. However, the historical context is crucial as it significantly influences how this conflict is perceived. Why, you might ask? Before their occupation by Israel in 1967, when these territories were under Jordanian and Egyptian control, they were not regarded as occupied by the local population. There was no PLO or Hamas fighting the Jordanians nor the Egyptians. Given this background, many Israelis believe that the Palestinian struggle against Israel has not primarily been about establishing an independent nation to coexist peacefully alongside Israel. Rather, they view the aim of the struggle as attempting to dismantle Israel as a Jewish state by systematically challenging its historical and political legitimacy. Therefore, Netanyahu position on this subject hasn't been far from the majority vote in Israel, and so he was not challenged about it
  - racional 2y ago
    It is occupied — the West Bank by Jordan and Gaza by Egypt I think what you mean to say here is that these were the last modern states to hold recognized sovereignty over the respective territories. But of course they exercised any control over those places since 1967. Historically, these areas were never considered Palestinian Correct if, again, one is thinking in terms of a sovereign Palestine state. However there has been nonetheless distinct Palestinian identity in formation since the 19th century, or possibly further depending on whom you ask (even if it didn't align exactly with European models for such at the time). Given this background, many Israelis believe that the Palestinian struggle against Israel has not primarily been about establishing an independent nation to coexist peacefully alongside Israel. Rather, they view the aim of the struggle as attempting to dismantle Israel as a Jewish state by systematically challenging its historical and political legitimacy. This is pretty good summation of the mainstream position within Israel society. A corresponding view of the current mainstream Palestinian position might go like this: Given this background, many Palestinians believe that current Israeli policy is not about establishing its own security (and certainly not within 1967 borders), but about the continuing removal from, and/or permanent subjugation of the Palestinian people within the Occupied Territories. In particular, they see absolutely no interest in a 2SS solution on the Israeli side. They therefore see the dismantling of the Israeli state not just as the only viable alternative to their own destruction, but as a historical inevitability. That seems to be what it comes down to. The question is -- where to go from here.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      Morris would have references to modern "Palestine" (that is: stuff from like the time of the Roman empire doesn't count, and the term was not in use nor was it apparently an ethnic identity during much of the long reign of the Ottoman Empire) starting around 1911, with the "Filistin" newspaper, and points out that up until around 1920 the claimed identity was "Syrian" ("Southern Syrian", from the Suriyya al-Janubiya newspaper), until the Franco-Syrian war screwed that all up. One of those fun scenarios where everyone with a simple story is wrong. Like, Gaza and especially Jerusalem were clearly centers of nascent Arab ethnic identity? The UN partition was in part a response to unified ethnic identification in the Gaza region? A good AskHistorians answer on this: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/17552u6/why_did_they_split_palestine_and_israel_in_that/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/17552u6/why_...
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
cykros 2y ago
Indeed, he's preferred to have a constant simmering conflict that the IOF can control, rather than a major one that results in a boiling over that makes a mess of the kitchen. Thousands imprisoned without charges, hundreds killed annually (with 2023 PRIOR to Oct 7 being the deadliest year for Palestinians in decades) without most of the world batting an eye is how he prefers it.

Chris2048 2y ago

Do you consider the occupation of Palestinian territory previous to Oct 7th to be major conflict?

Protostome 2y ago
Firstly, the territory in question is contested. Although I acknowledge that it is occupied—the West Bank by Jordan and Gaza by Egypt—historically, these areas were never considered Palestinian. To clarify, I fully support the establishment of a Palestinian state across all of these territories with East Jerusalem as its capital. However, the historical context is crucial as it significantly influences how this conflict is perceived. Why, you might ask? Before their occupation by Israel in 1967, when these territories were under Jordanian and Egyptian control, they were not regarded as occupied by the local population. There was no PLO or Hamas fighting the Jordanians nor the Egyptians. Given this background, many Israelis believe that the Palestinian struggle against Israel has not primarily been about establishing an independent nation to coexist peacefully alongside Israel. Rather, they view the aim of the struggle as attempting to dismantle Israel as a Jewish state by systematically challenging its historical and political legitimacy. Therefore, Netanyahu position on this subject hasn't been far from the majority vote in Israel, and so he was not challenged about it
- racional 2y ago
  It is occupied — the West Bank by Jordan and Gaza by Egypt I think what you mean to say here is that these were the last modern states to hold recognized sovereignty over the respective territories. But of course they exercised any control over those places since 1967. Historically, these areas were never considered Palestinian Correct if, again, one is thinking in terms of a sovereign Palestine state. However there has been nonetheless distinct Palestinian identity in formation since the 19th century, or possibly further depending on whom you ask (even if it didn't align exactly with European models for such at the time). Given this background, many Israelis believe that the Palestinian struggle against Israel has not primarily been about establishing an independent nation to coexist peacefully alongside Israel. Rather, they view the aim of the struggle as attempting to dismantle Israel as a Jewish state by systematically challenging its historical and political legitimacy. This is pretty good summation of the mainstream position within Israel society. A corresponding view of the current mainstream Palestinian position might go like this: Given this background, many Palestinians believe that current Israeli policy is not about establishing its own security (and certainly not within 1967 borders), but about the continuing removal from, and/or permanent subjugation of the Palestinian people within the Occupied Territories. In particular, they see absolutely no interest in a 2SS solution on the Israeli side. They therefore see the dismantling of the Israeli state not just as the only viable alternative to their own destruction, but as a historical inevitability. That seems to be what it comes down to. The question is -- where to go from here.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    Morris would have references to modern "Palestine" (that is: stuff from like the time of the Roman empire doesn't count, and the term was not in use nor was it apparently an ethnic identity during much of the long reign of the Ottoman Empire) starting around 1911, with the "Filistin" newspaper, and points out that up until around 1920 the claimed identity was "Syrian" ("Southern Syrian", from the Suriyya al-Janubiya newspaper), until the Franco-Syrian war screwed that all up. One of those fun scenarios where everyone with a simple story is wrong. Like, Gaza and especially Jerusalem were clearly centers of nascent Arab ethnic identity? The UN partition was in part a response to unified ethnic identification in the Gaza region? A good AskHistorians answer on this: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/17552u6/why_did_they_split_palestine_and_israel_in_that/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/17552u6/why_...
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]

cykros 2y ago

Indeed, he's preferred to have a constant simmering conflict that the IOF can control, rather than a major one that results in a boiling over that makes a mess of the kitchen. Thousands imprisoned without charges, hundreds killed annually (with 2023 PRIOR to Oct 7 being the deadliest year for Palestinians in decades) without most of the world batting an eye is how he prefers it.