4 ms·

Can most Israelis remember true peacetime? The Israelis have chosen to maintain a continuous military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza for almost six decade

Can most Israelis remember true peacetime? The Israelis have chosen to maintain a continuous military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza for almost six decades, rather than integrating them or letting them be independent, which locks the region in permanent conflict of varying levels of intensity.

edanm 2y ago
First, no - most Israelis have never lived under true peacetime. I do think there's a difference between the relatively peaceful times though, and the current situation, for all parties. > The Israelis have chosen to maintain a continuous military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza for almost six decades, rather than integrating them or letting them be independent, which locks the region in permanent conflict of varying levels of intensity. You seem to imply that all the blame for the region having conflict is the occupation, which is... not quite true. Israel was founded and immediately attacked, and was attacked several more times before the military occupation; one major reason the occupation even happened in the first place was because Israel feared further attacks from neighboring countries, and wanted more of a buffer. Look, I'm no fan of the occupation, to put it mildly (very mildly). But it's not the whole reason for the conflict. And more importantly, it's not just Israel "choosing" a military occupation instead of "letting them be independent". There were very serious attempts to try and reach a settlement with the Palestinians that would give them an independent state, and indeed that was the birth of the current Palestinian government/state in the form of the PA, with what independence they do have. But the Palestinians refused and walked away from getting a state. And Israel did leave Gaza, to at least some extent - they then elected Hamas and started firing rockets at Israel two years later. I'm obviously a bit biased towards the more pro-Israel narrative, though I try to see things from the Palestinian perspective as well. But I don't think you can completely lay the blame on one side, as you seemed to do (and sorry if I misunderstood you).
- TazeTSchnitzel 2y ago
  Israel can't choose its neighbours, for sure, and it's true that in the first half of its existence it was regularly threatened by them. But that world no longer exists. Lebanon and Syria are now very weak, and Israel has made peace with Egypt and Jordan. I don't know what can be done about Hezbollah, but it may be worth considering that Hezbollah only exists in the first place because of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, and it would probably be significantly weaker if Israel would actually resolved the Palestinian question. From what I have heard, the idea the Palestinians were ever actually offered a state may be a myth, but I think the more important thing there is that Rabin was assassinated and that torpedoed the process. Netanyahu has never really seemed interested in peace, his political career depends on it not happening.
  - edanm 2y ago
    Hezbollah exists as an Iranian proxy, and Iran has repeatedly stated that their goal is to wipe out Israel. But yes, alliances with neighbors is definitely something Israel should pursue, as is working towards peace with the Palestinians. That might not work to dissuade Iran from wanting to destroy Israel, but it will certainly help - and is the morally right thing to do anyways. > From what I have head, the idea the Palestinians were ever actually offered a state may be a myth [...] It absolutely isn't a myth. It was widely known and accepted by most people that the Palestinians walked away from very good deals, probably the best Israel can do. I'm not sure why there's a modern movement to change that knowledge, when reading the accounts of most people surrounding the negotiations gives a pretty clear picture. Specifically, Barak offered a decent deal in 2000, the Clinton parameters of around 2001 were an even better proposal that seemed to give the Palestinians almost everything they wanted, and Olmert made a proposal that was really, really good. The Palestinians walked away from these deals without any alternative offer, without saying what would work for them. Don't trust Israel's word for it - trust Clinton's! Or trust numerous other US negotiators. > [...] Rabing was assassinated and that torpedoed the process. This is wrong, he was assassinated in 1995, all the offers I talked about happened afterwards, from 2000 to 2008. Israelis voted multiple times for people who vowed to pursue a peace process, and even Sharon, who was a very hawkish PM, ended up doing the Gaza withdrawal. What really torpedoed the peace process was that Israeli steps towards peace, including the Oslo process that founded the PA and gave them semi-control over the land, was met with the second intifada's terror attacks. Israelis saw steps towards peace being met with more violence, not less. The same happened again with the Gaza withdrawal - the hawkish Israelis warned that withdrawing the army and giving Palestinians full control of Gaza would end with them using it as a terror base, and that's exactly what happened. Again, to Israelis - a step towards giving Palestinians more control ended with far, far more violence. > Netanyahu has never really seemed interested in peace [...] This is absolutely true, and the major correct criticism of Israel is in its actions under Netanyahu over the last 15ish years. Israel has not only not continued to pursue peace because of the destruction of the Israeli left, but under Netanyahu, actively thwarted peace in many ways, weakening the PA at the expense of Hamas to keep the conflict going. As the stronger party, I think Israel has a moral duty to pursue peace, and to help foster leaders that can bring peace.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  Look, I'm no fan of the occupation, to put it mildly (very mildly). Perhaps a more pertinent question to ask would be: do you consider the settlements (at more or less their current scale) as being helpful to Israel's security interests -- or unhelpful? (For the purpose of this question, we can just allow ourselves to imagine that it was somehow possible for civil society in Israel to get its act together and implement a working freeze on settlement footprint, and perhaps even roll back some of its more egregious recent expansion). But it's not the whole reason for the conflict. Not the whole reason, of course. But the occupation (and the settlements issue in particular) does seem to be an integral component of the "magic sauce" that's been keeping the conflict going for far too many more decades more than the international community should have ever allowed it to. It basically seems to be its center of gravity, in fact.
  - edanm 2y ago
    > Perhaps a more pertinent question to ask would be: do you consider the settlements (at more or less their current scale) as being helpful to Israel's security interests -- or unhelpful? No, I think keeping a war going with your neighbors, not to mention occupying another people, is a pretty terrible long-term idea from a security perspective, even without looking at the moral dimension. At least in the long term. I'll try and defend the other side for one second here; there are basically two reasons to have settlements in the West Bank: 1. Some people think we are "entitled" to that land for religious or other reasons. I obviously don't subscribe to this view and think it's immoral nonsense. This is a minority view, but a minority that unfortunately has gained political power because, frankly, they're the only people still willing to work with Netanyahu. 2. There is a real argument that in the short term, the settlements do help Israel with security. E.g. when Israel decided to leave the Gaza strip, and uprooted all Jewish settlements there, they elected Hamas and almost immediately started firing rockets at Israel, not to mention long-term planning October 7th. The argument settlers sometimes make is that they provide a defensive line, and that if there weren't settlements in the WB, Israel would just have another Gaza strip situation on its hands. This has some merit, in the short term; though I think that if Israel really wants to, it can just use the army to protect against the WB even without settlers, and rogue citizens providing security is a terrible situation (leading to the terrible settler violence happening in the WB all these years, and especially over the last year). In any case, this argument falls apart long-term. The only real long-term security is to make some form of peace with the Palestinians. Obviously there'll need to be security guarantees to Israel somehow, and similar guarantees to the Palestinians somehow, but that's the only real long term solution. --- Btw, when the WB and Gaza (and Sinai) were initially captured, there were far bigger reasons to hold on to them - Israel had just been attacked by Jordan and Egypt, and those territories provided buffer zones that were very necessary to help defend the country. Nowadays, of course, Israel has semi-peaceful relations with Egypt and Jordan, that has held for half a century - so that reason is no longer very relevant. --- > Not the whole reason, of course. But the occupation (and the settlements issue in particular) does seem to be an integral component of the "magic sauce" that's been keeping the conflict going for far too many more decades more than the international community should have ever allowed it to. This is actually complicated and not the whole story, though you are somewhat right nowadays. I personally think the real, fundamental, problem is that the Palestinians still believe they are entitled to, and going to get, all of the land of Israel. That's the underlying reason that the peace accords failed, it's the underlying reason they continue to use violence to try and, in their minds, "drive the Jews back to where they came from", etc. If they truly were willing to accept a two-state solution, they could have had one at multiple times throughout history. It's the reason the occupation is ongoing - because the only way practical way to stop it is through a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians, but as long as they refuse to accept Israel's continued existence, such a settlement can't happen! Of course, over the last 15 years, Israel has done plenty to go against any chance of having a peace, including deliberately hurting the Palestinians who did try to work towards a resolution. So while the underlying goals of most Palestinians is to blame here, Israel is also to blame for fostering those underlying goals.

edanm 2y ago

First, no - most Israelis have never lived under true peacetime. I do think there's a difference between the relatively peaceful times though, and the current situation, for all parties. > The Israelis have chosen to maintain a continuous military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza for almost six decades, rather than integrating them or letting them be independent, which locks the region in permanent conflict of varying levels of intensity. You seem to imply that all the blame for the region having conflict is the occupation, which is... not quite true. Israel was founded and immediately attacked, and was attacked several more times before the military occupation; one major reason the occupation even happened in the first place was because Israel feared further attacks from neighboring countries, and wanted more of a buffer. Look, I'm no fan of the occupation, to put it mildly (very mildly). But it's not the whole reason for the conflict. And more importantly, it's not just Israel "choosing" a military occupation instead of "letting them be independent". There were very serious attempts to try and reach a settlement with the Palestinians that would give them an independent state, and indeed that was the birth of the current Palestinian government/state in the form of the PA, with what independence they do have. But the Palestinians refused and walked away from getting a state. And Israel did leave Gaza, to at least some extent - they then elected Hamas and started firing rockets at Israel two years later. I'm obviously a bit biased towards the more pro-Israel narrative, though I try to see things from the Palestinian perspective as well. But I don't think you can completely lay the blame on one side, as you seemed to do (and sorry if I misunderstood you).

TazeTSchnitzel 2y ago
Israel can't choose its neighbours, for sure, and it's true that in the first half of its existence it was regularly threatened by them. But that world no longer exists. Lebanon and Syria are now very weak, and Israel has made peace with Egypt and Jordan. I don't know what can be done about Hezbollah, but it may be worth considering that Hezbollah only exists in the first place because of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, and it would probably be significantly weaker if Israel would actually resolved the Palestinian question. From what I have heard, the idea the Palestinians were ever actually offered a state may be a myth, but I think the more important thing there is that Rabin was assassinated and that torpedoed the process. Netanyahu has never really seemed interested in peace, his political career depends on it not happening.
- edanm 2y ago
  Hezbollah exists as an Iranian proxy, and Iran has repeatedly stated that their goal is to wipe out Israel. But yes, alliances with neighbors is definitely something Israel should pursue, as is working towards peace with the Palestinians. That might not work to dissuade Iran from wanting to destroy Israel, but it will certainly help - and is the morally right thing to do anyways. > From what I have head, the idea the Palestinians were ever actually offered a state may be a myth [...] It absolutely isn't a myth. It was widely known and accepted by most people that the Palestinians walked away from very good deals, probably the best Israel can do. I'm not sure why there's a modern movement to change that knowledge, when reading the accounts of most people surrounding the negotiations gives a pretty clear picture. Specifically, Barak offered a decent deal in 2000, the Clinton parameters of around 2001 were an even better proposal that seemed to give the Palestinians almost everything they wanted, and Olmert made a proposal that was really, really good. The Palestinians walked away from these deals without any alternative offer, without saying what would work for them. Don't trust Israel's word for it - trust Clinton's! Or trust numerous other US negotiators. > [...] Rabing was assassinated and that torpedoed the process. This is wrong, he was assassinated in 1995, all the offers I talked about happened afterwards, from 2000 to 2008. Israelis voted multiple times for people who vowed to pursue a peace process, and even Sharon, who was a very hawkish PM, ended up doing the Gaza withdrawal. What really torpedoed the peace process was that Israeli steps towards peace, including the Oslo process that founded the PA and gave them semi-control over the land, was met with the second intifada's terror attacks. Israelis saw steps towards peace being met with more violence, not less. The same happened again with the Gaza withdrawal - the hawkish Israelis warned that withdrawing the army and giving Palestinians full control of Gaza would end with them using it as a terror base, and that's exactly what happened. Again, to Israelis - a step towards giving Palestinians more control ended with far, far more violence. > Netanyahu has never really seemed interested in peace [...] This is absolutely true, and the major correct criticism of Israel is in its actions under Netanyahu over the last 15ish years. Israel has not only not continued to pursue peace because of the destruction of the Israeli left, but under Netanyahu, actively thwarted peace in many ways, weakening the PA at the expense of Hamas to keep the conflict going. As the stronger party, I think Israel has a moral duty to pursue peace, and to help foster leaders that can bring peace.
aguaviva 2y ago
Look, I'm no fan of the occupation, to put it mildly (very mildly). Perhaps a more pertinent question to ask would be: do you consider the settlements (at more or less their current scale) as being helpful to Israel's security interests -- or unhelpful? (For the purpose of this question, we can just allow ourselves to imagine that it was somehow possible for civil society in Israel to get its act together and implement a working freeze on settlement footprint, and perhaps even roll back some of its more egregious recent expansion). But it's not the whole reason for the conflict. Not the whole reason, of course. But the occupation (and the settlements issue in particular) does seem to be an integral component of the "magic sauce" that's been keeping the conflict going for far too many more decades more than the international community should have ever allowed it to. It basically seems to be its center of gravity, in fact.
- edanm 2y ago
  > Perhaps a more pertinent question to ask would be: do you consider the settlements (at more or less their current scale) as being helpful to Israel's security interests -- or unhelpful? No, I think keeping a war going with your neighbors, not to mention occupying another people, is a pretty terrible long-term idea from a security perspective, even without looking at the moral dimension. At least in the long term. I'll try and defend the other side for one second here; there are basically two reasons to have settlements in the West Bank: 1. Some people think we are "entitled" to that land for religious or other reasons. I obviously don't subscribe to this view and think it's immoral nonsense. This is a minority view, but a minority that unfortunately has gained political power because, frankly, they're the only people still willing to work with Netanyahu. 2. There is a real argument that in the short term, the settlements do help Israel with security. E.g. when Israel decided to leave the Gaza strip, and uprooted all Jewish settlements there, they elected Hamas and almost immediately started firing rockets at Israel, not to mention long-term planning October 7th. The argument settlers sometimes make is that they provide a defensive line, and that if there weren't settlements in the WB, Israel would just have another Gaza strip situation on its hands. This has some merit, in the short term; though I think that if Israel really wants to, it can just use the army to protect against the WB even without settlers, and rogue citizens providing security is a terrible situation (leading to the terrible settler violence happening in the WB all these years, and especially over the last year). In any case, this argument falls apart long-term. The only real long-term security is to make some form of peace with the Palestinians. Obviously there'll need to be security guarantees to Israel somehow, and similar guarantees to the Palestinians somehow, but that's the only real long term solution. --- Btw, when the WB and Gaza (and Sinai) were initially captured, there were far bigger reasons to hold on to them - Israel had just been attacked by Jordan and Egypt, and those territories provided buffer zones that were very necessary to help defend the country. Nowadays, of course, Israel has semi-peaceful relations with Egypt and Jordan, that has held for half a century - so that reason is no longer very relevant. --- > Not the whole reason, of course. But the occupation (and the settlements issue in particular) does seem to be an integral component of the "magic sauce" that's been keeping the conflict going for far too many more decades more than the international community should have ever allowed it to. This is actually complicated and not the whole story, though you are somewhat right nowadays. I personally think the real, fundamental, problem is that the Palestinians still believe they are entitled to, and going to get, all of the land of Israel. That's the underlying reason that the peace accords failed, it's the underlying reason they continue to use violence to try and, in their minds, "drive the Jews back to where they came from", etc. If they truly were willing to accept a two-state solution, they could have had one at multiple times throughout history. It's the reason the occupation is ongoing - because the only way practical way to stop it is through a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians, but as long as they refuse to accept Israel's continued existence, such a settlement can't happen! Of course, over the last 15 years, Israel has done plenty to go against any chance of having a peace, including deliberately hurting the Palestinians who did try to work towards a resolution. So while the underlying goals of most Palestinians is to blame here, Israel is also to blame for fostering those underlying goals.