It could prolong the war in Gaza, but unless Hezbollah mobilise their fighters for a ground invasion I think Israel has more than enough planes for both Gaza and striking back at launch sites etc. The main burden for Israel isn’t military but it’s the 100k refugees, which seems to be the reason they’re turning up the heat now
It undermines a two-state solution because that would require the Arab nationalists to accept the state of Israel and, more importantly, stop attacking it. It’s clear that Hamas and Islamic Jihad are never going to do that. And Hezbollah immediately attacking Israel in support of them after a major attack just shows that they too won’t ever be able to agree to a normal relation
It undermines a two-state solution because that would require the Arab nationalists to accept the state of Israel and, more importantly, stop attacking it.
Before that Israel needs to accept that Palestine exists and stop robbing them of their right to self-determination (and, you know, not getting genocided). Israel has shown many times they have no intention of ever doing that, so how do you expect the resistance to accept them? Palestinians don’t accept Israel because Israel in its current state is unacceptable and has no intention to change, simple as that. The last real chance for change was Rabin and you know how that ended. From that it was all one big farce.
If you want to know what I mean by Israel in its current state, well they should at least consider the idea of not making settlements and lifting the blockade before serious talks can start. Not saying they should do both of these things before any negotiations can begin, but when the response to “can you not build settlements/lift the blockade” is “no go to hell” there’s not much to negotiate. This makes civil resistance impossible and therefore armed resistance the only method of resistance, hence Hamas’s actions and Hezbollah’s support.
Well I largely agree, except for one very important part and that’s the 'before that… '. Why should one side accept peace before the other?
The ultrazionists have always been proven right and emboldened by their counterparts. The Arab Nationalists could not accept the borders in '48, so they attacked, which resulted in them losing territory. They could not accept the borders that resulted from that war, so they built up their strength and they attacked again, which resulted in them losing more territory. So they built up strength again and… Well you know where I’m going with this.
And keep in mind that meanwhile, even though ceasefire deals existed on paper, Arab nationalist and islamic extremists made sure to keep the fire burning with deadly terror attacks agains Israeli and jewish targets around the world.
As such is the nature of a religious conflict: they always want to be Numba One. They cannot accept losing any of their divine priviliges.
So they’ve been battling it out over Palestine for more than a century, and they’re both wrong and they’re both never going to give up. And when either breaks a border ceasefire again (such as Hamas and Hezbollah last year) , they’re undermining the credibility of a two-state solution
Why should one side accept peace before the other?
It’s not about accepting peace. One side (Zionists) are unwilling to entertain the very idea of an equal and just peace. You can’t get anywhere with that. The Palestinian side has always been open to that idea, but without the oppressor deciding to consider the idea of not oppressing you’ll never get anywhere. What, exactly, do you suggest Palestinians do here that will get them a state with real sovereignty?
And keep in mind that meanwhile, even though ceasefire deals existed on paper, Arab nationalist and islamic extremists made sure to keep the fire burning with deadly terror attacks agains Israeli and jewish targets around the world.
That has always been what ceasefires mean in this conflict, for both sides. You certainly don’t see Israel not building settlements or not bombing Gaza or any of the other examples of
their colonialist aggression during ceasefires. This is irrespective of how faithfully the Palestinian side adheres to the ceasefire (see: 2008 and 2013 ceasefires).
The Palestinian side has always been open to that idea
That has no basis in reality. They tried to prevent the creation of a non-muslim state and failing that, they gathered troops to destroy it from day 1.
That has always been what ceasefires mean in this conflict, for both sides. You certainly don’t see Israel not building settlements or not bombing Gaza or any of the other examples of their colonialist aggression during ceasefires. This is irrespective of how faithfully the Palestinian side adheres to the ceasefire (see: 2008 and 2013 ceasefires).
Well regarding the West Bank, that of course is something where Israel is blocking a ‘fair’ solution as well. They’re not much better than their opposition in that regard. But even if you look at it from a pacifist Israeli pov, there’s a case to be made for wanting to control that territory, together with the Golan Heights: these are strategically important to keep Israel defensible. In the war of '67 they were lucky to learn of the plans of the coming invasion early enough to defend against them. But if they hadn’t, Israel could have been overrun ‘from within’ from the West-Bank rather easily. Which is why the wish of the zionists converged with that of the military to keep it.
With Gaza it’s quite the opposite: Israel decided in 2005 to just withdraw from it and leave them to themselves. They didn’t just go bomb them ‘for fun’. Continuing small terrorist attacks made them build a wall around them with tedious checkpoints. Hamas starts shooting rockets over it so they place interceptor missiles and, yes, try to bomb the launch sites and weapon deposits. Hamas overruns their defenses, kills or kidnaps everyone they can. So that’s where we are now. It’s not like Hamas was just peacefully sipping tea and going about their business, totally not launching near daily attacks on Israel, for 20 years
That has no basis in reality. They tried to prevent the creation of a non-muslim state and failing that, they gathered troops to destroy it from day 1.
Always here means since the 90s or so. I should’ve probably clarified that. That aside, you seem to have issues with Palestinians’ opposition to the creation of an Apartheid state where they’re meant to be second class citizens (because let’s face it, Israel is not and was never going to be a proper democracy).
But even if you look at it from a pacifist Israeli pov, there’s a case to be made for wanting to control that territory, together with the Golan Heights: these are strategically important to keep Israel defensible. In the war of '67 they were lucky to learn of the plans of the coming invasion early enough to defend against them. But if they hadn’t, Israel could have been overrun ‘from within’ from the West-Bank rather easily. Which is why the wish of the zionists converged with that of the military to keep it.
Why are you treating Israel’s convenience as being more important than Palestinian lives? This attitude is why the conflict is still going. You can’t talk like that and call what you come up with an “equal and just peace”. If Israel can’t exist without committing slow burn genocide (or just regular genocide since October 7), then why should it?
With Gaza it’s quite the opposite: Israel decided in 2005 to just withdraw from it and leave them to themselves.
Uh… That is a massive misinterpretation of history. Israel withdrew and, at the same time, started what would go on to become the Gaza blockade.
try to bomb the launch sites and weapon deposits.
Man, just face reality. Have you seen how Gaza looks like now? It’s been orders of magnitude worse since October 7, but everything-the starvation, the poor sanitation, the blatantly disregard of civilian lives, if not outright murderous intent. This has been daily life in Gaza for 20 years. Like hell they left them to themselves.
totally not launching near daily attacks on Israel, for 20 years
Okay, let me just say this: You need to read less blatant Israeli propaganda if this is your image of the past 20 years in Gaza. Start by looking at the timeline of this part of the conflict starting with the Israeli withdrawal. Then you should look at the 2008 ceasefire and 2013 ceasefire, and the vehement Israeli opposition to lifting the blockade or allowing a united government of Gaza and the West Bank. Israel as an entity is opposed to peace as a concept, as are all settler colonies. If you can’t accept the fact that Israel is a settler colony not unlike 19th century America and pre-independence Ireland, then this conversation is over.
Always here means since the 90s or so. I should’ve probably clarified that.
Yeah ok, if you let history start where it’s convenient for you I can imagine you coming to those conclusions
That aside, you seem to have issues with Palestinians’ opposition to the creation of an Apartheid state where they’re meant to be second class citizens (because let’s face it, Israel is not and was never going to be a proper democracy).
If you think the Arab nationalists wanted a proper secular democracy, that’s delusional. They wanted a continuation of what they knew and what happened in the rest of the region: an Arab state where muslims would remain the first class citizens. (And it’s a bit of a cliché, but which of its surrounding Arab neighbours became ‘a proper democracy’?)
Why are you treating Israel’s convenience as being more important than Palestinian lives? This attitude is why the conflict is still going.
If you call not being conquered and genocided ‘a convenience’ I don’t know how to answer this…
If Israel can’t exist without committing slow burn genocide (or just regular genocide since October 7), then why should it?
They can exist with occupying the WB and GH. The ethnic cleansing that you want to call genocide is something the ultrazionists always craved, and they gained democratic approval partly because of the promise of neverending violence by the other side. There are plenty of countries that exist or expanded on the premise of ethnic cleansing or settlement - just look at recent events in Nagorno-Kharabach or, very comparable to Palestine, the annexation of the Western Sahara territories. Is it good? No. But it’s part of political and human reality and it’s always a question of what’s going to cause the least suffering.
Uh… That is a massive misinterpretation of history. Israel withdrew and, at the same time, started what would go on to become the Gaza blockade.
Uh… No that’s exactly what happened and the ‘blockade’ was not a blockade but a filter to prevent weapons going in that would be used to attack Israel. October 7 even proved that ‘the Gaza blockade’ was too lenient. Hamas couldn’t help themselves smuggling in weapons, using building materials to build a tunnel network, and attacking Israel to take hostages when they found themselves armed enough… I know you don’t want to think about the before times but before the 1990’s, people could mostly travel freely between Gaza City and Tel Aviv.
Man, just face reality. Have you seen how Gaza looks like now? It’s been orders of magnitude worse since October 7, but everything-the starvation, the poor sanitation, the blatantly disregard of civilian lives, if not outright murderous intent. This has been daily life in Gaza for 20 years. Like hell they left them to themselves.
No it hasn’t. You can find plenty of video accounts of life in Gaza pre-Oct 7. Really, I implore you to look it up because you sound like you’ve only really started caring about the situation for a year or so. Gaza looks like it does now because a) Hamas used their freedom Gaza to build up to conduct a major terrorist attack and b) because it’s clear to Israel that this will just happen again and again, and sooner again, if they keep their gloves on.
Israel as an entity is opposed to peace as a concept, as are all settler colonies. If you can’t accept the fact that Israel is a settler colony not unlike 19th century America and pre-independence Ireland, then this conversation is over
Yeah sure man. I love how you’re reducing the US to ‘19th century America’, because it’s a great example. I’m betting 5 shots on you living in the US, sitting right on the graves of the genocided natives, trying to find reasons why one religious cult should rule over the other in Palestine because that will shift the guilt
Can you explain how this is going to turn out ‘better’ for Palestine? I’d say that it just further discredits the call for a two-state solution
First, it takes heat off Gaza and the West Bank, especially if the conflict escalates further. Second,
how so? Discredits the call for a two state solution according to who and for what reason?
It could prolong the war in Gaza, but unless Hezbollah mobilise their fighters for a ground invasion I think Israel has more than enough planes for both Gaza and striking back at launch sites etc. The main burden for Israel isn’t military but it’s the 100k refugees, which seems to be the reason they’re turning up the heat now
It undermines a two-state solution because that would require the Arab nationalists to accept the state of Israel and, more importantly, stop attacking it. It’s clear that Hamas and Islamic Jihad are never going to do that. And Hezbollah immediately attacking Israel in support of them after a major attack just shows that they too won’t ever be able to agree to a normal relation
Before that Israel needs to accept that Palestine exists and stop robbing them of their right to self-determination (and, you know, not getting genocided). Israel has shown many times they have no intention of ever doing that, so how do you expect the resistance to accept them? Palestinians don’t accept Israel because Israel in its current state is unacceptable and has no intention to change, simple as that. The last real chance for change was Rabin and you know how that ended. From that it was all one big farce.
If you want to know what I mean by Israel in its current state, well they should at least consider the idea of not making settlements and lifting the blockade before serious talks can start. Not saying they should do both of these things before any negotiations can begin, but when the response to “can you not build settlements/lift the blockade” is “no go to hell” there’s not much to negotiate. This makes civil resistance impossible and therefore armed resistance the only method of resistance, hence Hamas’s actions and Hezbollah’s support.
Well I largely agree, except for one very important part and that’s the 'before that… '. Why should one side accept peace before the other?
The ultrazionists have always been proven right and emboldened by their counterparts. The Arab Nationalists could not accept the borders in '48, so they attacked, which resulted in them losing territory. They could not accept the borders that resulted from that war, so they built up their strength and they attacked again, which resulted in them losing more territory. So they built up strength again and… Well you know where I’m going with this.
And keep in mind that meanwhile, even though ceasefire deals existed on paper, Arab nationalist and islamic extremists made sure to keep the fire burning with deadly terror attacks agains Israeli and jewish targets around the world.
As such is the nature of a religious conflict: they always want to be Numba One. They cannot accept losing any of their divine priviliges.
So they’ve been battling it out over Palestine for more than a century, and they’re both wrong and they’re both never going to give up. And when either breaks a border ceasefire again (such as Hamas and Hezbollah last year) , they’re undermining the credibility of a two-state solution
It’s not about accepting peace. One side (Zionists) are unwilling to entertain the very idea of an equal and just peace. You can’t get anywhere with that. The Palestinian side has always been open to that idea, but without the oppressor deciding to consider the idea of not oppressing you’ll never get anywhere. What, exactly, do you suggest Palestinians do here that will get them a state with real sovereignty?
That has always been what ceasefires mean in this conflict, for both sides. You certainly don’t see Israel not building settlements or not bombing Gaza or any of the other examples of their colonialist aggression during ceasefires. This is irrespective of how faithfully the Palestinian side adheres to the ceasefire (see: 2008 and 2013 ceasefires).
That has no basis in reality. They tried to prevent the creation of a non-muslim state and failing that, they gathered troops to destroy it from day 1.
Well regarding the West Bank, that of course is something where Israel is blocking a ‘fair’ solution as well. They’re not much better than their opposition in that regard. But even if you look at it from a pacifist Israeli pov, there’s a case to be made for wanting to control that territory, together with the Golan Heights: these are strategically important to keep Israel defensible. In the war of '67 they were lucky to learn of the plans of the coming invasion early enough to defend against them. But if they hadn’t, Israel could have been overrun ‘from within’ from the West-Bank rather easily. Which is why the wish of the zionists converged with that of the military to keep it.
With Gaza it’s quite the opposite: Israel decided in 2005 to just withdraw from it and leave them to themselves. They didn’t just go bomb them ‘for fun’. Continuing small terrorist attacks made them build a wall around them with tedious checkpoints. Hamas starts shooting rockets over it so they place interceptor missiles and, yes, try to bomb the launch sites and weapon deposits. Hamas overruns their defenses, kills or kidnaps everyone they can. So that’s where we are now. It’s not like Hamas was just peacefully sipping tea and going about their business, totally not launching near daily attacks on Israel, for 20 years
Always here means since the 90s or so. I should’ve probably clarified that. That aside, you seem to have issues with Palestinians’ opposition to the creation of an Apartheid state where they’re meant to be second class citizens (because let’s face it, Israel is not and was never going to be a proper democracy).
Why are you treating Israel’s convenience as being more important than Palestinian lives? This attitude is why the conflict is still going. You can’t talk like that and call what you come up with an “equal and just peace”. If Israel can’t exist without committing slow burn genocide (or just regular genocide since October 7), then why should it?
Uh… That is a massive misinterpretation of history. Israel withdrew and, at the same time, started what would go on to become the Gaza blockade.
Man, just face reality. Have you seen how Gaza looks like now? It’s been orders of magnitude worse since October 7, but everything-the starvation, the poor sanitation, the blatantly disregard of civilian lives, if not outright murderous intent. This has been daily life in Gaza for 20 years. Like hell they left them to themselves.
Okay, let me just say this: You need to read less blatant Israeli propaganda if this is your image of the past 20 years in Gaza. Start by looking at the timeline of this part of the conflict starting with the Israeli withdrawal. Then you should look at the 2008 ceasefire and 2013 ceasefire, and the vehement Israeli opposition to lifting the blockade or allowing a united government of Gaza and the West Bank. Israel as an entity is opposed to peace as a concept, as are all settler colonies. If you can’t accept the fact that Israel is a settler colony not unlike 19th century America and pre-independence Ireland, then this conversation is over.
Yeah ok, if you let history start where it’s convenient for you I can imagine you coming to those conclusions
If you think the Arab nationalists wanted a proper secular democracy, that’s delusional. They wanted a continuation of what they knew and what happened in the rest of the region: an Arab state where muslims would remain the first class citizens. (And it’s a bit of a cliché, but which of its surrounding Arab neighbours became ‘a proper democracy’?)
If you call not being conquered and genocided ‘a convenience’ I don’t know how to answer this…
They can exist with occupying the WB and GH. The ethnic cleansing that you want to call genocide is something the ultrazionists always craved, and they gained democratic approval partly because of the promise of neverending violence by the other side. There are plenty of countries that exist or expanded on the premise of ethnic cleansing or settlement - just look at recent events in Nagorno-Kharabach or, very comparable to Palestine, the annexation of the Western Sahara territories. Is it good? No. But it’s part of political and human reality and it’s always a question of what’s going to cause the least suffering.
Uh… No that’s exactly what happened and the ‘blockade’ was not a blockade but a filter to prevent weapons going in that would be used to attack Israel. October 7 even proved that ‘the Gaza blockade’ was too lenient. Hamas couldn’t help themselves smuggling in weapons, using building materials to build a tunnel network, and attacking Israel to take hostages when they found themselves armed enough… I know you don’t want to think about the before times but before the 1990’s, people could mostly travel freely between Gaza City and Tel Aviv.
No it hasn’t. You can find plenty of video accounts of life in Gaza pre-Oct 7. Really, I implore you to look it up because you sound like you’ve only really started caring about the situation for a year or so. Gaza looks like it does now because a) Hamas used their freedom Gaza to build up to conduct a major terrorist attack and b) because it’s clear to Israel that this will just happen again and again, and sooner again, if they keep their gloves on.
Yeah sure man. I love how you’re reducing the US to ‘19th century America’, because it’s a great example. I’m betting 5 shots on you living in the US, sitting right on the graves of the genocided natives, trying to find reasons why one religious cult should rule over the other in Palestine because that will shift the guilt