3 ms·

There are other facts on the ground which go the other way, you just choose to ignore them. Like the fact that one side has offered a two-state solution, the o

There are other facts on the ground which go the other way, you just choose to ignore them. Like the fact that one side has offered a two-state solution, the other has refused it. Or that one side is much more democratic than the other. That one side has been openly and proudly promoting exterminating the other side wholesale for much longer, and much more vocally than the other side. You could use an LLM to come up with more examples, then verify accuracy yourself. But then what would be left of your comfortable illusions of clarity?

tdeck 1y ago
> Like the fact that one side has offered a two-state solution, True. Hamas has offered this since 2017 [1] but Israel has never honestly offered it. And it's practically impossible anyway at this point with all the illegal (under international law) settlements in the west bank, supported by the IDF. Something you wouldn't do if you were trying to move toward a "two state solution", but something you would do if that was just talk intended to delay any implementation of Palestinian human rights in Israeli occupied territory while finalizing a drawn out campaign of ethnic cleansing as fast as you think the US will allow. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/01/hamas-new-charter-palestine-israel-1967-borders https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/01/hamas-new-char...
- pegasus 1y ago
  Yeah, it's Israel which "never honestly offered it", while Hamas, who always maintained that Israel has no place in the middle east, does offer such a solution in this proposal, while curiously not mentioning Israel at all, only that they shall take the whole of Jerusalem. But the article helpfully infers that this elision means Hamas would clarly accept Israel's right to exist. It just reeks of honesty...
  - tdeck 1y ago
    Wow that supposed "both sides" facade really vanished pretty quickly didn't it? Not even a performative condemnation of Israel's constant onslaught of home demolitions and illegal settlements.
    - pegasus 1y ago
      How so? Since I made it clear that I see both sides as responsible for the mess, it should be evident that I don't agree with Israel's excesses any more that with those of Hamas. (And anyway, even if I would have spelled out the obvious, you just revealed you would have auto-magically labeled my admission as insincere). All I wanted to show is how much truth-twisting side-pickers have to engage in to maintain their comfortable illusion of clarity. Btw. it's not any prettier with hard-core Israel supporters either. Fair is fair.
      - tdeck 1y ago
        Ok, I'll bite. Which of Israel's "excesses" (interesting word choice) do you specifically condemn?
        pegasus 1y ago
        Most of the ones listed above. Basically abusing their power in the region. Like all powers have done since the dawn of time. (Let's not try to imagine what would happen if Hamas would somehow get the upper hand either - shudder). Does this mean I should start taking sides with those who have been chanting "Death to Israel, death to America" for generations and declare that they were right after all? Not at all. And what about Israel's right to exist? Maybe this is what you were referring by "interesting choice of words" - to some, Israel is itself an excess which needs to be corrected. If the self-appointed "corrector" is American, I will remind them on how their country was founded, the genocide of the native peoples, and how maybe now's the time to return it all to their rightful owners and head back to wherever their ancestors have come from. Lemme tell you, they don't like this line of reasoning. Especially if they're that special kind of Israel-hating American Jew: where would they go to, Israel?!? Now we're back to square one! And the same argument can be applied to pretty much any people. We all descend from migrants who elbowed their way into territories where others were already present, and who, in turn, forced their way into the lands of even more ancient populations, ad-infinitum. Sure, it happened a while ago, but who's to say where the line should be drawn? Usually, self-interest: "the statute of limitations applies to me, but not to the Jews of Israel"; or "yeah, I'll throw the first stone, I have no qualms with that, all is kosher in my corner of the world..."
- F3nd0 1y ago
  > Hamas advocates the liberation of all of Palestine but is ready to support the state on 1967 borders without recognising Israel or ceding any rights In what way can this be read as 'honestly offering a two-state solution'? If one is not willing to recognise that there would be two (sovereign) states, it's not much of a two-state solution, is it?
  - throw310822 1y ago
    I don't see Israel willing to recognize a Palestinian state, it's even threatening with consequences those who do. This doesn't prevent Israel from being recognized, does it?
    - rendang 1y ago
      Israel in 2025 is very hostile to a 2 state solution. However your original claim was "for decades", and decades ago the situation and politics were not the same
      - throw310822 1y ago
        Forty years ago Israel had already annexed and settled East Jerusalem (Palestinian territory) and had started settling the West Bank. You cannot be in favour of the creation of a state and having good relations with your neighbour while annexing its territory at the same time. What has changed is that Israel is more of one mind and less afraid of saying what it really wants- which is everything, one way or another.
ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
> one side has offered a two-state solution Yes, Palestine. A 2-state solution means 2 equal states, without 1 bossing the other around, and with each being equally protected against the other. > the other has refused it. Yes, israel: not only do they refuse proposed 2-state solutions, they even refuse proposed ceasefires that could lead to peace. > That one side has been openly and proudly exterminating the other side wholesale Yes, israel is actually doing this. > one side is much more democratic than the other How does israel feel about the democratic votes held in the UN regarding their behavior? Does israel respect that democracy?
- zoratu 1y ago
  There have been MANY proposals for two state solutions, from Israel and from the UN and from other third parties that both sides were willing to listen to, going back to 1937. In each case, they've been rejected by Palestinian leaders. After 88 years of rejected proposals, relentless violence from the Palestinians with no sign of stopping, and generations of young people indoctrinated with hatred, it's no wonder the current government has no interest in concessions.

tdeck 1y ago

> Like the fact that one side has offered a two-state solution, True. Hamas has offered this since 2017 [1] but Israel has never honestly offered it. And it's practically impossible anyway at this point with all the illegal (under international law) settlements in the west bank, supported by the IDF. Something you wouldn't do if you were trying to move toward a "two state solution", but something you would do if that was just talk intended to delay any implementation of Palestinian human rights in Israeli occupied territory while finalizing a drawn out campaign of ethnic cleansing as fast as you think the US will allow. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/01/hamas-new-charter-palestine-israel-1967-borders https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/01/hamas-new-char...

pegasus 1y ago
Yeah, it's Israel which "never honestly offered it", while Hamas, who always maintained that Israel has no place in the middle east, does offer such a solution in this proposal, while curiously not mentioning Israel at all, only that they shall take the whole of Jerusalem. But the article helpfully infers that this elision means Hamas would clarly accept Israel's right to exist. It just reeks of honesty...
- tdeck 1y ago
  Wow that supposed "both sides" facade really vanished pretty quickly didn't it? Not even a performative condemnation of Israel's constant onslaught of home demolitions and illegal settlements.
  - pegasus 1y ago
    How so? Since I made it clear that I see both sides as responsible for the mess, it should be evident that I don't agree with Israel's excesses any more that with those of Hamas. (And anyway, even if I would have spelled out the obvious, you just revealed you would have auto-magically labeled my admission as insincere). All I wanted to show is how much truth-twisting side-pickers have to engage in to maintain their comfortable illusion of clarity. Btw. it's not any prettier with hard-core Israel supporters either. Fair is fair.
    - tdeck 1y ago
      Ok, I'll bite. Which of Israel's "excesses" (interesting word choice) do you specifically condemn?
      - pegasus 1y ago
        Most of the ones listed above. Basically abusing their power in the region. Like all powers have done since the dawn of time. (Let's not try to imagine what would happen if Hamas would somehow get the upper hand either - shudder). Does this mean I should start taking sides with those who have been chanting "Death to Israel, death to America" for generations and declare that they were right after all? Not at all. And what about Israel's right to exist? Maybe this is what you were referring by "interesting choice of words" - to some, Israel is itself an excess which needs to be corrected. If the self-appointed "corrector" is American, I will remind them on how their country was founded, the genocide of the native peoples, and how maybe now's the time to return it all to their rightful owners and head back to wherever their ancestors have come from. Lemme tell you, they don't like this line of reasoning. Especially if they're that special kind of Israel-hating American Jew: where would they go to, Israel?!? Now we're back to square one! And the same argument can be applied to pretty much any people. We all descend from migrants who elbowed their way into territories where others were already present, and who, in turn, forced their way into the lands of even more ancient populations, ad-infinitum. Sure, it happened a while ago, but who's to say where the line should be drawn? Usually, self-interest: "the statute of limitations applies to me, but not to the Jews of Israel"; or "yeah, I'll throw the first stone, I have no qualms with that, all is kosher in my corner of the world..."
F3nd0 1y ago
> Hamas advocates the liberation of all of Palestine but is ready to support the state on 1967 borders without recognising Israel or ceding any rights In what way can this be read as 'honestly offering a two-state solution'? If one is not willing to recognise that there would be two (sovereign) states, it's not much of a two-state solution, is it?
- throw310822 1y ago
  I don't see Israel willing to recognize a Palestinian state, it's even threatening with consequences those who do. This doesn't prevent Israel from being recognized, does it?
  - rendang 1y ago
    Israel in 2025 is very hostile to a 2 state solution. However your original claim was "for decades", and decades ago the situation and politics were not the same
    - throw310822 1y ago
      Forty years ago Israel had already annexed and settled East Jerusalem (Palestinian territory) and had started settling the West Bank. You cannot be in favour of the creation of a state and having good relations with your neighbour while annexing its territory at the same time. What has changed is that Israel is more of one mind and less afraid of saying what it really wants- which is everything, one way or another.

ImPostingOnHN 1y ago

> one side has offered a two-state solution Yes, Palestine. A 2-state solution means 2 equal states, without 1 bossing the other around, and with each being equally protected against the other. > the other has refused it. Yes, israel: not only do they refuse proposed 2-state solutions, they even refuse proposed ceasefires that could lead to peace. > That one side has been openly and proudly exterminating the other side wholesale Yes, israel is actually doing this. > one side is much more democratic than the other How does israel feel about the democratic votes held in the UN regarding their behavior? Does israel respect that democracy?

zoratu 1y ago
There have been MANY proposals for two state solutions, from Israel and from the UN and from other third parties that both sides were willing to listen to, going back to 1937. In each case, they've been rejected by Palestinian leaders. After 88 years of rejected proposals, relentless violence from the Palestinians with no sign of stopping, and generations of young people indoctrinated with hatred, it's no wonder the current government has no interest in concessions.