5 ms·

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 u

by 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.
  - siltcakes 2y ago
    You didn’t mention Nakba which is the core issue. Israel cannot exist on stolen land and be pro-peace. It really is as simple as that.
    - edanm 2y ago
      Since most Palestinians consider all the land to be stolen land, especially in reference to the Nakba, you're pretty much saying Israel cannot exist.
      - siltcakes 2y ago
        Yes, that’s what I’m saying. I support a single Palestinian state based on the human rights violations that went into illegally constructing the Israeli state.
      - sadboi31 2y ago
        Well, the ottomans have tax records going back hundreds of years so....
  - aprilthird2021 2y ago
    Thanks for sharing. I guess I never thought of anti-Israel or being pro-Israel and also pro-two-state-solution. There are fewer and fewer who balance both positions. Israel is hostile to Palestinians as Palestinians are to Israelis. The killing of many people during the march of return. The starvation plus diets. The treatment of the West Bank after the PA renounced violence as part of Oslo, there are numerous examples Palestinians will cite to show that Israel is hostile to them. You can trot out a long historical argument to justify all these, if you'd like. They can do the same for Oct. 7. Such narratives begin with the Nakba, probably include the fact that Palestinians have no military which can adequately protect them from Israel while Israel has missile deterrence systems, etc. But all these don't matter. At the end of the day, right now, both countries are materially and physically threatened by the other. And those threats materialize into violence often. > Unfortunately, I disagree. Your disagreement doesn't change the actual calculus on the ground, so it doesn't matter. Like I said, only deterrence actually can make peace between two actively hostile nations. It is also not true that the Palestinians did not accept any peace. They accepted Oslo, in which they conceded far more than Israel, and were rewarded for that with basically nothing. But again, it doesn't really matter now, that is long gone and dead, and if you see it differently, fine. > 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. The US and the UK fought many wars (American Independence, the WR of 1812, etc.) they achieved peace through deterrence because the American army could stand up against the British army at that time. That deterrence set up the allyship they have now. America chooses to have peace with Zimbabwe, but these nations have never been hostile with each other. If America ever perceived Zimbabwe as hostile to it enough to be a serious threat, they would invade and decimate the country as they did Afghanistan and Iraq. Our situation is not like those. Both countries rightly perceive the other as an active threat. In such a situation, when only one can deter the other, you'll have terrorism until some actual, tough, negotiated peace process occurs. Unlike with the IRA (a similar situation to this one), the closest peace process for both sides was sabotaged and ruined, and now we are in a territory not really historically analogous to any other in the modern era. > 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 You could of course swap Palestine and Israel and have the American left-wing reading of the situation. You would balk at that saying "But the Palestinians are a security threat. Israel cannot be expected to allow that on its border. The US would never allow Mexico... Etc." and that is of course the same logic Palestine uses to justify its attacks on Israel. Palestine, being inferior by air, land, and sea militarily resorts to terrorism in its attacks, just as the IRA did with a similarly overmatched foe.

by edanm 2y ago

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.
- siltcakes 2y ago
  You didn’t mention Nakba which is the core issue. Israel cannot exist on stolen land and be pro-peace. It really is as simple as that.
  - edanm 2y ago
    Since most Palestinians consider all the land to be stolen land, especially in reference to the Nakba, you're pretty much saying Israel cannot exist.
    - siltcakes 2y ago
      Yes, that’s what I’m saying. I support a single Palestinian state based on the human rights violations that went into illegally constructing the Israeli state.
    - sadboi31 2y ago
      Well, the ottomans have tax records going back hundreds of years so....
- aprilthird2021 2y ago
  Thanks for sharing. I guess I never thought of anti-Israel or being pro-Israel and also pro-two-state-solution. There are fewer and fewer who balance both positions. Israel is hostile to Palestinians as Palestinians are to Israelis. The killing of many people during the march of return. The starvation plus diets. The treatment of the West Bank after the PA renounced violence as part of Oslo, there are numerous examples Palestinians will cite to show that Israel is hostile to them. You can trot out a long historical argument to justify all these, if you'd like. They can do the same for Oct. 7. Such narratives begin with the Nakba, probably include the fact that Palestinians have no military which can adequately protect them from Israel while Israel has missile deterrence systems, etc. But all these don't matter. At the end of the day, right now, both countries are materially and physically threatened by the other. And those threats materialize into violence often. > Unfortunately, I disagree. Your disagreement doesn't change the actual calculus on the ground, so it doesn't matter. Like I said, only deterrence actually can make peace between two actively hostile nations. It is also not true that the Palestinians did not accept any peace. They accepted Oslo, in which they conceded far more than Israel, and were rewarded for that with basically nothing. But again, it doesn't really matter now, that is long gone and dead, and if you see it differently, fine. > 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. The US and the UK fought many wars (American Independence, the WR of 1812, etc.) they achieved peace through deterrence because the American army could stand up against the British army at that time. That deterrence set up the allyship they have now. America chooses to have peace with Zimbabwe, but these nations have never been hostile with each other. If America ever perceived Zimbabwe as hostile to it enough to be a serious threat, they would invade and decimate the country as they did Afghanistan and Iraq. Our situation is not like those. Both countries rightly perceive the other as an active threat. In such a situation, when only one can deter the other, you'll have terrorism until some actual, tough, negotiated peace process occurs. Unlike with the IRA (a similar situation to this one), the closest peace process for both sides was sabotaged and ruined, and now we are in a territory not really historically analogous to any other in the modern era. > 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 You could of course swap Palestine and Israel and have the American left-wing reading of the situation. You would balk at that saying "But the Palestinians are a security threat. Israel cannot be expected to allow that on its border. The US would never allow Mexico... Etc." and that is of course the same logic Palestine uses to justify its attacks on Israel. Palestine, being inferior by air, land, and sea militarily resorts to terrorism in its attacks, just as the IRA did with a similarly overmatched foe.