14 ms·

I would argue that he was pro-peace. He wanted both Israel and Palestine to exist, not one at the expense of the other. Just as he peace treaty with Egypt was

I would argue that he was pro-peace. He wanted both Israel and Palestine to exist, not one at the expense of the other. Just as he peace treaty with Egypt was pro-Peace not pro-Egyptian. For this reason he opposed Israeli settlements in the West Bank saying they were leading to a situation akin to apartheid, eg https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-... It wasn’t very successful as a proposition as it seems that Israel will annex the West Bank and much of Gaza but leaving Palestinians without a state of their own or without citizenship in Israel.

golemiprague 2y ago
[flagged]
- genman 2y ago
  [flagged]
- aprilthird2021 2y ago
  Countries are not "for" ethnicities, nor should they be in the modern era. Yes, I include Japan, Saudi, etc. in my calculations. But those states' existence did not make a substantial group of people stateless.
  - edanm 2y ago
    The Jews had just suffered a genocide, and were not wanted anywhere. There was literally no where for them to go, except the one place that had a thriving Jewish settlement on it for the past 50 years (and a deep connection from long before). I think the history of Israel/Palestine is complicated, and everyone has some blame for the lack of current day peace, but let's be clear that the majority of Jews who became Israelis were not some conquering colonizers - they were the weakest refugees in the world, who had just seen 90% of their family killed, and had nowhere else to go.
    - aprilthird2021 2y ago
      I didn't say colonizers. Also Israel's Jewish population is made up majorly of people not tied to Europe / the Holocaust. Those latter are the minority. Again, a state built around one ethnicity that by its founding requires people of a separate ethnicity who were equally living in the same land to become stateless, that's wrong and should not happen. Now, the Holocaust is nearing 100 years old, does the raison d'etre of the country even apply anymore and does it justify the current state of things which has not changed since then?
      - edanm 2y ago
        > Also Israel's Jewish population is made up majorly of people not tied to Europe / the Holocaust. Those latter are the minority. The majority were largely refugees that were ethnically cleansed from the Arab world, so not sure that really changes anything. > Again, a state built around one ethnicity that by its founding requires people of a separate ethnicity who were equally living in the same land to become stateless, that's wrong and should not happen. Israel's founding did not require anyone to become stateless. The land was effectively inhabited by two separate groups that did not want to become one state, and rules by the British - then the British gave the UN the task of deciding what to do, and they suggested what everyone else who has ever looked at the problem has suggested, and what any five year old would suggest - split the land into two, and give one to each group. The Jews accepted this split - and the Arabs refused, and started a war to conquer all the area (and let's leave to the imagination what they would've done with the Jewish population in the area). But, all of that is history at this point. I don't think it matters as much now - Israel exists and has existed for 75 years as a fully reocgnized state. It no more makes sense to talk about "it's wrong for Israel to exist" as to talk about "it's wrong for the US" to exist. Do we routinely look at any other country's founding and talk about them not making sense any more? Many of which were also founded based around ethnicities? > Now, the Holocaust is nearing 100 years old, does the raison d'etre of the country even apply anymore and does it justify the current state of things which has not changed since then? Countries don't need a raison d'etre to continue existing. If by "current state of things" you mean the Palestinians having no state, I don't think anything justifies that. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to change that - multiple attempts have been made at a peace process that gets the Palestinians a sate, which the Palestinians have refused each time. By most surveys or interviews I've seen, most Palestinians do not want peace with Israel - they want Israel gone. And to top it off, the last 15ish years have seen Israel become ever more extreme right, partially driven by the Israeli left's total failure to create a peace with the Palestinians - so it's not like the Israeli side is encouraging peace at this point, in fact quite the opposite.
genman 2y ago
[flagged]
- hiddencost 2y ago
  [flagged]
- anon7000 2y ago
  It is similarly the indigenous land of the Palestinians.
  - genman 2y ago
    Like Americans and Canadians are not indigenous people of Northern America and Australians are not indigenous people of Australia, they are not. Arabs in Palestine are descendants of colonizers and settlers enabled by the colonial powers.
    - 4gotunameagain 2y ago
      > Arabs in Palestine are descendants of colonizers and settlers enabled by the colonial powers. So the creation of a state by western colonial powers and the migration of jews from all over the world there does not make them descendants of colonizers and settlers, because they identify with some people mentioned in a two thousand year old book which says they lived there. Oh and they didn't even speak the same language, they had to revive it. Right. Makes sense.
      - genman 2y ago
        Their home was taken away by The Western Colonial Power - Rome. Jews are the only nation that was crushed by Rome, but survived without their land, all other such nations have perished. Restoring their homeland on their indigenous land was the only morally rightful thing to do when the descendants of Rome recaptured this territory.
        2y ago
aprilthird2021 2y ago
What is the difference between pro-peace and pro-Palestine? I've always understood them to largely be different terms in favor of a two-state solution.
- edanm 2y ago
  Well it depends on what you mean by pro-Palestine. One could similarly ask what's the difference between being pro-Israel and being pro-peace. As some people use the term, it means the dissolution of Israel. As others use it, it means being in favor of a peace agreement between Israel and Palestine for a two state solution. I think if you ask most Israelis (including me), they'll tell you that it's an unfortunate reality that most Palestinians themselves don't actually want peace - they want Israel gone. Many people who call themselves pro-Palestinian mean that they want whatever Palestinians want, which includes the dissolution of Israel. Personally, I think being pro-Israel or pro-Palestine should both be the same as being pro-peace, because the only think that will ensure a good future for both peoples will be having peace between them.
  - aprilthird2021 2y ago
    Pro-Israel, as far as the government is, is inherently an anti-two-state-solution position. How can there be peace with 2-3 million stateless people who have no way to defend themselves against a hostile nation? You're talking about what Palestinians inherently "want", but that's not really related to peace. Peace exists when nations can deter each other. The USSR and the USA had peace despite each "wanting" to destroy the other because they had MAAD. Without that, imagine the carnage? It might have looked like what we see today in Gaza... I agree with you, that I wish pro-either-country was a pro-peace position. Ultimately it will have to become one in Israel for the situation to change. No matter what Palestinians want, they don't have the firepower to change the calculus.
    - edanm 2y ago
      > Pro-Israel, as far as the government is, is inherently an anti-two-state-solution position. I'm definitely pro-Israel and anti-the-current-Israeli-government. I think terminology-wise, if I said I were anti-US, most would not equate it to being anti-Biden or anti-Trump, but rather anti-the-country-itself. So I think saying "anti-Israel" when you mean "anti-the-current-Israeli-government" is a bad way to phrase it. > How can there be peace with 2-3 million stateless people who have no way to defend themselves against a hostile nation? 1. They have militias. Much weaker ones than Israel, but not nothing. 2. Israel is not inherently hostile to Palestine, IMO. Hamas (the militia that supposedly doesn't exist?) invaded Israel on October 7th and ran around killing people and taking hostages. Had they decided to stay home on October 7th, there would've been no war. Now, maybe the situation was intolerable before that - I don't think it was, but maybe. Either way, the way out of it was probably not to further prove to Israelis that they will never be safe with Hamas on its borders. > You're talking about what Palestinians inherently "want", but that's not really related to peace. Unfortunately, I disagree. Because the Palestinians have shown, again and again, that they have the ability and the willingness to inflict unacceptable amounts of damage on Israel. Plenty of Israelis want peace, or at least some semblance of it, with the Palestinians. Many sympathize deeply with them. As long as the Palestinians refuse to accept any peace, and insist on making Israeli believe that any territory they control will be used as a base to attack Isarelis more, Israeli will simply not give them territory. > Peace exists when nations can deter each other. I think this is both very bleak, and very wrong. The US has peace with the UK. It has peace with Zimbabwe. It has peace with Vietnam, despite a massive war with it. It has peace with Andorra. None of these places can deter the US. But they're not actively threatening the US - so why wouldn't there be peace? Peace can also exist when countries don't have a reason to threaten each other. This is why, fundamentally, I believe the problem between Israel and Palestinians comes down to the Palestinians refusing to give up on most of the territory of Israel. There is a very obvious way to peace - simply agree to split the land along the borders that every agrees with, and... that's kind of it. The Palestinians have refused this again and again, and not only have they refused - they've ramped up the violence every time peace was being negotiated. > Ultimately it will have to become one in Israel for the situation to change. No matter what Palestinians want, they don't have the firepower to change the calculus. I agree that morally speaking, Israel must do all in its power to change the situation to arrive at peace. But the Palestinians don't need firepower to change the calculus - that's the opposite of what they need. They need to stop using firepower to fight Israel, and prove that they will be willing to live side-by-side with Israel without trying to kill Israeli. If they laid down their weapons - the current war would be over tomorrow, and there'd be peace the day after.

golemiprague 2y ago

[flagged]

genman 2y ago
[flagged]
aprilthird2021 2y ago
Countries are not "for" ethnicities, nor should they be in the modern era. Yes, I include Japan, Saudi, etc. in my calculations. But those states' existence did not make a substantial group of people stateless.
- edanm 2y ago
  The Jews had just suffered a genocide, and were not wanted anywhere. There was literally no where for them to go, except the one place that had a thriving Jewish settlement on it for the past 50 years (and a deep connection from long before). I think the history of Israel/Palestine is complicated, and everyone has some blame for the lack of current day peace, but let's be clear that the majority of Jews who became Israelis were not some conquering colonizers - they were the weakest refugees in the world, who had just seen 90% of their family killed, and had nowhere else to go.
  - aprilthird2021 2y ago
    I didn't say colonizers. Also Israel's Jewish population is made up majorly of people not tied to Europe / the Holocaust. Those latter are the minority. Again, a state built around one ethnicity that by its founding requires people of a separate ethnicity who were equally living in the same land to become stateless, that's wrong and should not happen. Now, the Holocaust is nearing 100 years old, does the raison d'etre of the country even apply anymore and does it justify the current state of things which has not changed since then?
    - edanm 2y ago
      > Also Israel's Jewish population is made up majorly of people not tied to Europe / the Holocaust. Those latter are the minority. The majority were largely refugees that were ethnically cleansed from the Arab world, so not sure that really changes anything. > Again, a state built around one ethnicity that by its founding requires people of a separate ethnicity who were equally living in the same land to become stateless, that's wrong and should not happen. Israel's founding did not require anyone to become stateless. The land was effectively inhabited by two separate groups that did not want to become one state, and rules by the British - then the British gave the UN the task of deciding what to do, and they suggested what everyone else who has ever looked at the problem has suggested, and what any five year old would suggest - split the land into two, and give one to each group. The Jews accepted this split - and the Arabs refused, and started a war to conquer all the area (and let's leave to the imagination what they would've done with the Jewish population in the area). But, all of that is history at this point. I don't think it matters as much now - Israel exists and has existed for 75 years as a fully reocgnized state. It no more makes sense to talk about "it's wrong for Israel to exist" as to talk about "it's wrong for the US" to exist. Do we routinely look at any other country's founding and talk about them not making sense any more? Many of which were also founded based around ethnicities? > Now, the Holocaust is nearing 100 years old, does the raison d'etre of the country even apply anymore and does it justify the current state of things which has not changed since then? Countries don't need a raison d'etre to continue existing. If by "current state of things" you mean the Palestinians having no state, I don't think anything justifies that. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to change that - multiple attempts have been made at a peace process that gets the Palestinians a sate, which the Palestinians have refused each time. By most surveys or interviews I've seen, most Palestinians do not want peace with Israel - they want Israel gone. And to top it off, the last 15ish years have seen Israel become ever more extreme right, partially driven by the Israeli left's total failure to create a peace with the Palestinians - so it's not like the Israeli side is encouraging peace at this point, in fact quite the opposite.

genman 2y ago

[flagged]

hiddencost 2y ago
[flagged]
anon7000 2y ago
It is similarly the indigenous land of the Palestinians.
- genman 2y ago
  Like Americans and Canadians are not indigenous people of Northern America and Australians are not indigenous people of Australia, they are not. Arabs in Palestine are descendants of colonizers and settlers enabled by the colonial powers.
  - 4gotunameagain 2y ago
    > Arabs in Palestine are descendants of colonizers and settlers enabled by the colonial powers. So the creation of a state by western colonial powers and the migration of jews from all over the world there does not make them descendants of colonizers and settlers, because they identify with some people mentioned in a two thousand year old book which says they lived there. Oh and they didn't even speak the same language, they had to revive it. Right. Makes sense.
    - genman 2y ago
      Their home was taken away by The Western Colonial Power - Rome. Jews are the only nation that was crushed by Rome, but survived without their land, all other such nations have perished. Restoring their homeland on their indigenous land was the only morally rightful thing to do when the descendants of Rome recaptured this territory.
      - 2y ago

aprilthird2021 2y ago

What is the difference between pro-peace and pro-Palestine? I've always understood them to largely be different terms in favor of a two-state solution.

edanm 2y ago
Well it depends on what you mean by pro-Palestine. One could similarly ask what's the difference between being pro-Israel and being pro-peace. As some people use the term, it means the dissolution of Israel. As others use it, it means being in favor of a peace agreement between Israel and Palestine for a two state solution. I think if you ask most Israelis (including me), they'll tell you that it's an unfortunate reality that most Palestinians themselves don't actually want peace - they want Israel gone. Many people who call themselves pro-Palestinian mean that they want whatever Palestinians want, which includes the dissolution of Israel. Personally, I think being pro-Israel or pro-Palestine should both be the same as being pro-peace, because the only think that will ensure a good future for both peoples will be having peace between them.
- aprilthird2021 2y ago
  Pro-Israel, as far as the government is, is inherently an anti-two-state-solution position. How can there be peace with 2-3 million stateless people who have no way to defend themselves against a hostile nation? You're talking about what Palestinians inherently "want", but that's not really related to peace. Peace exists when nations can deter each other. The USSR and the USA had peace despite each "wanting" to destroy the other because they had MAAD. Without that, imagine the carnage? It might have looked like what we see today in Gaza... I agree with you, that I wish pro-either-country was a pro-peace position. Ultimately it will have to become one in Israel for the situation to change. No matter what Palestinians want, they don't have the firepower to change the calculus.
  - edanm 2y ago
    > Pro-Israel, as far as the government is, is inherently an anti-two-state-solution position. I'm definitely pro-Israel and anti-the-current-Israeli-government. I think terminology-wise, if I said I were anti-US, most would not equate it to being anti-Biden or anti-Trump, but rather anti-the-country-itself. So I think saying "anti-Israel" when you mean "anti-the-current-Israeli-government" is a bad way to phrase it. > How can there be peace with 2-3 million stateless people who have no way to defend themselves against a hostile nation? 1. They have militias. Much weaker ones than Israel, but not nothing. 2. Israel is not inherently hostile to Palestine, IMO. Hamas (the militia that supposedly doesn't exist?) invaded Israel on October 7th and ran around killing people and taking hostages. Had they decided to stay home on October 7th, there would've been no war. Now, maybe the situation was intolerable before that - I don't think it was, but maybe. Either way, the way out of it was probably not to further prove to Israelis that they will never be safe with Hamas on its borders. > You're talking about what Palestinians inherently "want", but that's not really related to peace. Unfortunately, I disagree. Because the Palestinians have shown, again and again, that they have the ability and the willingness to inflict unacceptable amounts of damage on Israel. Plenty of Israelis want peace, or at least some semblance of it, with the Palestinians. Many sympathize deeply with them. As long as the Palestinians refuse to accept any peace, and insist on making Israeli believe that any territory they control will be used as a base to attack Isarelis more, Israeli will simply not give them territory. > Peace exists when nations can deter each other. I think this is both very bleak, and very wrong. The US has peace with the UK. It has peace with Zimbabwe. It has peace with Vietnam, despite a massive war with it. It has peace with Andorra. None of these places can deter the US. But they're not actively threatening the US - so why wouldn't there be peace? Peace can also exist when countries don't have a reason to threaten each other. This is why, fundamentally, I believe the problem between Israel and Palestinians comes down to the Palestinians refusing to give up on most of the territory of Israel. There is a very obvious way to peace - simply agree to split the land along the borders that every agrees with, and... that's kind of it. The Palestinians have refused this again and again, and not only have they refused - they've ramped up the violence every time peace was being negotiated. > Ultimately it will have to become one in Israel for the situation to change. No matter what Palestinians want, they don't have the firepower to change the calculus. I agree that morally speaking, Israel must do all in its power to change the situation to arrive at peace. But the Palestinians don't need firepower to change the calculus - that's the opposite of what they need. They need to stop using firepower to fight Israel, and prove that they will be willing to live side-by-side with Israel without trying to kill Israeli. If they laid down their weapons - the current war would be over tomorrow, and there'd be peace the day after.