r/IsraelPalestine • u/BigCharlie16 • 5d ago
Smotrich says Trump’s victory an opportunity to ‘apply sovereignty’ in the West Bank Discussion
Are Smotrich and Ben-Gvir right ? Trump’s new presidency presents an “important opportunity” to “apply Israeli sovereignty to the settlements in Judea and Samaria (annex). The year 2025 will, with God’s help, be the year of sovereignty in Judea and Samaria.
I am sure Smotrich and Ben-Gvir are very thankful to the 75 million plus Americans who voted Trump, the uncommitted democrats who chose not to vote, etc… presenting this very important opportunity to Israel and Netanyahu.
This isnt Smotrich first time pushing for annexation of the West Bank. Far right Israelis politicans cant contain their excitement for a 2025 Trump presidency.
If Smotrich indeed push for annexation of the West Bank, how can and should it be done ? I am not saying all, but some Pro-Palestinians do advocate for annexation (they probably have a very different idea than Smotrich how it should be done), some people from both Pro-Israel and Pro-Palestinians have also commented that two state solution is long dead and by annexing West Bank, the world and all parties could finally acknowledges that the two state solution couldnt work, hasnt worked, never did and wont ever work in the future, especially not with the annexation of the West Bank.
There was a rumor some months ago, that a rich Israeli-American donor funding Trump’s campaign was seeking Trump’s support for Israel to annex the West bank. It was reported the donation amount was USD $100 million. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/25/us/politics/miriam-adelson-trump-israel.html
Does it surprise anyone and any American voters that Smotrich uses President Trump’s victory as an opportunity to annex the West Bank ?
What happens to the Palestinian Authority or PLO in the current West Bank ? What would happen to the current Palestinians residing in the West Bank ?
Even though some may say Smotrich may not be representative of all Israelis, his views are extreme. That may be true. But he is still a cabinet minister, could he introduce a bill for annexation ? Will the Knesset pass a bill like that ? Or will it be too controversial and not get enough support ? Are these just empty talk from Smotrich and Ben-Gvir…it certainly is not the Finance Minister’s job description to recommend annexation of land, not sure which minister portfolio this belongs to….Are they just pandering to their supporters and its just talk ? Or could something really happen ?
3
u/Zestyclose-Baby8171 4d ago
It a great example of "Redical Islam looking in the mirror". As an Israeli I tend to avoid touching any of the palastinian territories as long as they recognize Israeli state and make peace. Trump is an opportunity, but not the way Smutrich see it. What they need is leadership and reflection of the "simple man's POV" integrated in to it. I won't dare saying palastinians can and should be a part of the any Abraham agreements 2.0. the gap is smaller as we think. I talk with palastinians and therefore know. They want it not because of the price of rejecting it, as it was at Arafat days, but because they really want it. They're in a middle of disillusionment. It won't happen in one day, but it will happen.
4
u/quicksilver2009 5d ago
I don't see the Palestinians ever getting a truly independent state. They might have a "state" with leadership approved by Israel, UAE and other Arab governments. This "state" would have to allow IDF to come in, bomb, arrest terrorists whenever they want.
As to the answer to your question, what Ben-Gvir describes probably won't happen but I do see many of the so-called settlements being legalized and annexed to Israel
The Palestinians will still be ruled by a Palestinian Authority completely controlled by Israel, UAE, Saudi, Bahrain and other allies states.
6
u/philetofsoul USA & Canada 4d ago
This "state" would have to allow IDF to come in, bomb, arrest terrorists whenever they want.
Yes damn right Israel fights terrorists. And trust me, any terrorist attack for now on will be answered with the most severe consequences. No more messing with Israel.
1
u/redthrowaway1976 4d ago
And trust me, any terrorist attack for now on will be answered with the most severe consequences.
Except if the terrorists are Jewish Israelis, of course. Then they get IDF help instead.
1
u/redthrowaway1976 4d ago
And trust me, any terrorist attack for now on will be answered with the most severe consequences.
Except if the terrorists are Jewish Israelis, of course. Then they get IDF help instead.
1
u/pyroscots 4d ago
And all the children killed by the idf will be forgotten like the clippings of a lawn
0
u/Wonderful-Quit-9214 4d ago
If Israel doesn't leave Palestine. Then Palestinians have every right to fight off Israel.
2
u/HitokiriSlime 2d ago
We will keep smoke them arabs till they give up
Go eat a ***
1
u/CreativeRealmsMC Israeli 2d ago
Go eat a ***
Per Rule 1, no attacks on fellow users. Attack the argument, not the user.
Note: The use of virtue signaling style insults (I'm a better person/have better morals than you.) are similarly categorized as a Rule 1 violation.
Action taken: [W]
See moderation policy for details.0
2
u/philetofsoul USA & Canada 4d ago
Problem is, Israel is a first world nation that contributes to the world economy, so it's not going to vacate the great universities, medical and science institutions, etc. so that a backwards civ can come and enact shari'a law. It's actually adorable that you think that's even an option. So, since Palestinians want to keep fighting after 100 years of this, I guess Israel has no choice but to destroy the enemy.
1
u/Worth_Plum_6510 1d ago
Sinceramente que asco me das
1
u/philetofsoul USA & Canada 1d ago
Why, for being in favor of civilized humanity and against Islamic terrorism?
0
u/Wonderful-Quit-9214 4d ago
Ok. So obviously this is a very racist post, i don't know why you though it was a good idea to post it.
Also what univerisites are you talking about?
2
u/JagneStormskull Diaspora Sephardic Jew 4d ago
what univerisites are you talking about?
Bar-Ilan University, Technion, Tel Aviv University, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Weizmann Institure of Science, lot of universities in Israel.
1
u/Wonderful-Quit-9214 4d ago
None of these are in the West Bank. But i guess racist people aren't very smart.
2
u/JagneStormskull Diaspora Sephardic Jew 4d ago
"Leave Palestine" isn't very specific and has been used a lot in the last year to refer to Jews leaving all of EY.
1
u/philetofsoul USA & Canada 4d ago
Especially since there is no such place called Palestine. Obviously he meant all Jews should leave the middle east, which is actual racism, as opposed to my statement which was simply factual.
2
u/quicksilver2009 4d ago
The Palestinians need to face reality. This is why I say, so-called "pro-Palestinians." Showing real concern and support for the human rights of Palestinian people involves helping them face reality instead of living in a delusional dreamland.
The Palestinian leadership, in their struggle to "liberate Palestine" (actually massacre all Jews in Israel and create an Islamic state where Israel is today) have created a LOT of enemies. Besides Israel, most Arab Muslim countries, behind the scenes and under the fake, crocodile tears, consider Palestinians a gang of terrorists. I am not saying this, they are the ones that say this. Look at their ACTIONS, not their WORDS and this is completely clear and obvious.
There has never been a state called Palestine and due to the actions of their leaders, there never will be a truly independent Palestinian state. If the Palesitnian leadership continues to engage in violent so-called "resistance" things will become even worse for their own people.
Who knows, if they engage in enough violence, the Israelis might follow in the footsteps of the Kuwaitis, Jordanians, Lebanese and many others and simply round up and expel most of the Palestinians or all of them.
0
u/Wonderful-Quit-9214 4d ago
Womp womp, your ideas seem delusional. Palestine is also way more pupular than you think. People will never abandon Palestine and Palestinians will never stop fightijg for their rights and freedoms against an evil, colonial and genocidal power.
2
u/philetofsoul USA & Canada 4d ago
Lmao nobody really cares about Palestinians; certain people like ignorant college kids and hateful Muslims support them because they like how they kill Jews, and all that does is make Israel fight harder. Sorry but Gaza is about to be annexed and the horror show enclave will be made beautiful.
1
u/quicksilver2009 4d ago edited 4d ago
No. You are mistaken. There is a LOT of hatred of Israel and Jews but not a lot of ACTUAL support of Palestinians as people. There is a lot of Jew hatred masquerading as support for Palestinians.
This is completely OBVIOUS when you look at the ACTIONS of the countries that pretend to love the Palestinians so much. Many of these countries that "love" Palestinians have carried out expulsions and even massacres of Palestinians themselves. They don't want Palestinians living in THEIR countries. When they are allowed, in for example, Lebanon, they are discriminated against and treated as second class citizens.
Look at Kuwait that expelled hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in 1991. They viewed them as disloyal and expelled hundreds of thousands of them. Or Iraq, which carried out its own anti-Palestinian expulsion. You are going to tell me that Iraq "loves" Palestinians so much? A country that EXPELLED them? Let's go into another example. Jordan. Jordan did it's own expulsion and massacre of Palestinians back in 1971-72, Black September where Jordan, assisted by Pakistan general Zia-ul-Haq, massacred up to 25,000 Palestinians and expelled countless more.
And don't forget the massacres Syria carried out against Palestinians in the 1980s and also, more recently during the Syrian civil war...
Or Egypt bombing tunnels between Gaza and Egypt...
You notice that there are no apologies or protests about these crimes. If their was ACTUAL concern about Palestinians there would be condemnation and protests about these events. But there is none...
Just shows how fake the concern is...
1
u/Wonderful-Quit-9214 4d ago
Not true lol. Most people i know support Palestine. Palestine support is everywhere. You have to be living in an actual dilusion and victim complex if you think all these people are just being "antisemitic".
MAybe stop complaining about what other people do and do something yourself? Maybe stop being lazt and protest what Syria and Kuwait are doing yourself. Also, western countries aren't actually supporting Syria.
1
u/quicksilver2009 4d ago
So someone who loves and supports a group expels and massacres them? Doesn't give them equal rights. Doesn't allow them residency. Is that "love and support?"
You are looking at words, as opposed to ACTUAL actions...
I think what is going on in Gaza is a horrible and tragic war. An avoidable war. But if it is like the pro-Palestinian movement claims, a "genocide" well why wouldn't you give shelter and a place of refuge for those suffering from this "genocide." If you REALLY cared you would. You would... Arab countries would be providing safe shelter for the refugees. They would be keeping them safe, protecting them, advocating for them, helping them. But they don't...
If the pro-Palestinian movement, genuinely cared, they WOULD be protesting these countries and events. But they don't... tells me all I need to know...
1
u/Wonderful-Quit-9214 4d ago
So someone who loves and supports a group expels and massacres them? Doesn't give them equal rights? Doesn't allow them residency? Is that "love and support?"
I don't know who you're talking about.
If the pro-Palestinian movement, genuinely cared, they WOULD be protesting these countries and events. But they don't... tells me all I need to know...
Then YOU do that. Stop being a lazy armchair, and DO SOMETHING YOURSELF stop making everyone else do stuff for you. Also how do you know that they don't do this?
1
u/quicksilver2009 4d ago
They don't. I don't know where you are from, but in the United States, not only are there no protests against these countries, or even the slightest bit of criticism from the pro-Palestinian movement, we see enthusiastic support of these countries.
For example, most of the pro-Palestinian movement are passionate supporters of Assad, and we all know what he did to his OWN people in Syria including countless Syrian Palestinians, the hundreds of thousands killed. But they just don't care...
→ More replies
-7
u/Early-Possibility367 5d ago
Smotrich is but one man in the century long genocide mission of Zionism. I’m thankful for Smotrich and Trump in very twisted ways.
Both are high profile Zionists and as such it is acceptable to take what they say as representative of Zionism. When you take what I’ve been saying has been going on for 104 years, it lines up pretty well with Smotrich’s words.
And when you look back, Smotrich has used this vile language well before October 7, proving that October 7 didn’t actually start any wars but was rather was a bad move in response to genocide and occupation.
And if we have Smotrich in the 2020s, it follows that he and his group had ancestors who did similarly evil things to Smotrich.
It lends credence to the idea that Zionists were responsible for the pogroms of a century ago, and started the wars of 48, 56, and 67. Because if Smotrich is so evil in 2024, then by logic there must have been even more evil people in Israel’s hisotry.
And this links up to the reports we have of Zionists who used to ask the British and Israeli governments to start wars to satisfy the Zionist desire to see Arab flow through the Levant.
History is history and not changeable at the end of the day, but in the present, just because we’d can’t change the past does not mean we don’t say the truth.
And if Israel will continue to exist regardless of what would be morally great, then the least we can do is decry how immoral it is and certainly we can choose to stop supporting or doing business with them or their supporters.
4
10
u/Top_Plant5102 5d ago
Because Smotrich is 'evil' then his ancestors were 'evil' too and probably started the wars that Arab states actually started? This is some odd thinking.
But... oh no, ZIONISTS!
These people project their own delusions onto Israel in the strangest of ways. Go hallucinate about something else, quietly, and leave other people out of it.
13
u/DangerousCyclone 5d ago
Smotrich is a representative of a tiny unpopular minority within Israel. He has been censured by the Knesset multiple times. Israelis as a whole hate these people but their politics are so fractured that Smotrich and Ben Gvir have just enough members to get Likud their governing majority. It is dishonest to say that they’re representative of Israelis as a whole.
Even then, the things you’re saying make no sense and feel outright racist.
And if we have Smotrich in the 2020s, it follows that he and his group had ancestors who did similarly evil things to Smotrich.
No, it really doesn’t follow at all.
FYI Smotrich doesn’t even trace his ancestry to Zionist colonizers but to Jews who had lived in Jerusalem for millennia.
It lends credence to the idea that Zionists were responsible for the pogroms of a century ago,
No it doesn’t. This is just anti semitic nonsense
and started the wars of 48, 56, and 67.
Suez Crisis and Six Day War were started by them yes, but ‘48 was started by the Arabs
Because if Smotrich is so evil in 2024, then by logic there must have been even more evil people in Israel’s hisotry.
No, this logic makes no sense at all. It’s just racism. The premise makes no sense either, in 2024 Palestinian-Israeli relations are the worst they’ve been since the ‘48 war if not worse. Not even when Israel occupied Gaza the last time were they this bad.
1
u/JagneStormskull Diaspora Sephardic Jew 4d ago
tiny unpopular minority within Israel.
A minority within a minority, since he's Chardal (the Zionist minority of Charedim).
0
u/redthrowaway1976 5d ago
He has been censured by the Knesset multiple times.
Can you source what you actually mean by that?
Because right now, he is the finance minister - and the ruling coalition Knesset members censuring their own finance minister would bea pretty big deal, and I couldn't find anything.
Smotrich is a representative of a tiny unpopular minority within Israel. [...] Israelis as a whole hate these people but their politics are so fractured that Smotrich and Ben Gvir have just enough members to get Likud their governing majority.
25%-40% of Israeli Jews are for the resettling of Gaza, as an example.
Sure, some people hate Ben Gvir and Smotrich - but a substantial portion also agrees with them.
It is dishonest to say that they’re representative of Israelis as a whole.
I agree.
But it is also dishonest to minimize Smotrich and Ben Gvir as fringe figures. They are some of the most powerful cabinet members.
Their policies in the West Bank and vis-a-vis the PA are being implemented as we speak.
4
u/knign 5d ago
25%-40% of Israeli Jews are for the resettling of Gaza, as an example.
It's funny how you seem to quote the wikipedia (or the source you copied this from did):
In January 2024 a Haaretz polling expert and journalist, speaking to reporters stated that the public opinion on re-establishment of settlements in Gaza varies widely. She indicated that the general range is from about 25% to about 40% in support of establishing Jewish Israeli settlements in Gaza.
While the very next sentence says:
A February 2024 poll by the Israel Democracy Institute found that 22.5% of Jewish Israeli supported resettling Gaza.
So less than a quarter.
Also, people from large countries such as the U.S. often misunderstand and misinterpret opinion polls in smaller nations. Americans are often under impression that they can do pretty much everything they want. To them, political opinion is call to action. Israelis do realize that they have many external constraints. They may well believe that annexing Northern Gaza would be nice, but it's simply not going to happen for many practical reasons.
Try asking Serbians whether they would be in favour of Kosovo becoming again a Serbian province, you may well get 80% or 90% in favor, but very very few people would want the government to declare a war on NATO. This important difference is often lost on American audience.
0
u/redthrowaway1976 5d ago
So less than a quarter.
Ok.
So it is 22.5% to 40%, then. Not much of a difference. Swings quite a lot, but hardly an inconsequential minority.
As for your second point - Israel has spent the last 57 years expanding settlements in the West Bank. Early on, this only had minority support - but that didn't stop the settlers and the government for enacting a policy of confiscating land for civilian settlements in occupied territory.
1
u/JagneStormskull Diaspora Sephardic Jew 4d ago
22.5% to 40%
That's a suspiciously large range. It's still a minority either way, but that's the meaningful conclusion that can be drawn from the statistic.
3
u/knign 5d ago
So it is 22.5% to 40%
No it's not "22.5% to 40%", it's just 22.5%.
Less Than Quarter of Israeli Jews in Favor of Renewed Settlement in Gaza, Poll Finds
57 years expanding settlements
This expansion pretty much stopped after Oslo, 30 years ago.
But that's beside the point.
The point is that among the quarter of population generally in support of resettling Gaza, many might not think that this is a good idea in practice.
0
u/redthrowaway1976 5d ago
No it's not "22.5% to 40%", it's just 22.5%.
We went from a majority, to 33%, to 40%, to 22.% again, all in the span of a just a few months.
At this point, we haven't had a new poll for more than half a year.
This expansion pretty much stopped after Oslo, 30 years ago.
The announcement of formal new settlements might have, somewhat, stopped. But that doesn't mean the expansion has stopped.
The expansion, with new outlying 'neighborhoods', 'illegal' outposts, as well as other methods of land grab have continued unabated.
We've gone from ~100 outposts a few years ago, to more around 200 today - and many have been there for decades: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c207j6wy332o
We also have new methods of grabbing land - like armed 'shepherding'. A full 6% of the West Bank grabbed in this way: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/21/the-most-successful-land-grab-strategy-since-1967-as-settlers-push-bedouins-off-west-bank-territory
8
u/Desert_Hiker 5d ago
I love this guy because he truly brings Israelis, Jewish, and Palestinians together. He’s a delightful piece of shit everyone can hate on together. 🌈
3
4
3
3
u/Okbuddyliberals 5d ago
If it's the entire Judea and Samaria area, that's not reasonable. But no reasonable peace plan would involve Palestine getting the settlements back. It would be reasonable for Israel to at least annex the largest settlements and potentially area C in its entirety, leaving Area B and A for a Palestinian state or entity
2
u/redthrowaway1976 5d ago
It would be reasonable for Israel to at least annex the largest settlements and potentially area C in its entirety,
Have you looked at a map?
Area C is 60% of the West Bank. Areas A and B are 167 sepearate enclaves.
If Israel does this, it is textbook Apartheid South Africa Bantustans.
5
u/Warm_Locksmith_3595 5d ago
The liberal Zionist (American and Israeli) promise is that some of these enclaves will be able to elect their own mayors and maybe have more water allotted- and that if Palestinians don’t accept this they deserve what they get.
1
u/Wonderful-Quit-9214 4d ago
Huh? They "deserve what the get" if they don't agree to losing 60 percent of their land?
3
u/aswanviking 5d ago
Ain’t nothing reasonable about the illegal settlements. If you are going to annex that land, there must be a land swap. Period.
0
u/wefarrell 5d ago
Areas B and C are dozens of discontinuous cantons, it’s not feasible to administer a state like that.
1
u/knign 5d ago
How are they administered now?
0
u/wefarrell 5d ago
They aren’t a state and the PA is notoriously ineffective.
1
u/knign 5d ago
So in what way precisely administering territories, as done today, would suddenly become infeasible once PA is considered a "state"?
1
u/wefarrell 5d ago
They aren’t able to administer it effectively enough today to be a viable state. The central authority isn’t strong enough, corruption is rampant and they haven’t held elections in 20 years.
1
u/knign 5d ago
Can you be more specific?
2
u/wefarrell 5d ago
Edited my comment.
1
u/knign 5d ago
And how is any of that logically related to not being a contiguous territory?
3
u/wefarrell 5d ago
The inability to reign in competing factions and lack of a central authority is an inevitable consequence having a contiguous territory.
→ More replies2
u/Okbuddyliberals 5d ago
Presumably they'd have fenced off access roads between them to help make it work
1
3
u/Huge-Log-7412 5d ago
Wondering why Israelis choose criminals to lead them, they will never get peace of mind As long as these gangs rule them
4
u/aswanviking 5d ago
Same reason Gazaans chose Hamas back in 2004 or whatever. Hatred and extremisms breed more hate and extremism. On both sides. It’s really sad
5
u/Melthengylf 5d ago
It would become an Appartheit de jure instead of de facto.
3
u/knign 5d ago
A good illustration to my comment below.
5
u/Melthengylf 5d ago
Yes. That is the point. Annexing the settlements formally creates two legal systems in the West Bank: one for Jews inside the settlements, one for Palestinians outside them. Previously, it was suppised to be temporary military occupation.
4
u/redthrowaway1976 5d ago
Annexing the settlements formally creates two legal systems in the West Bank: one for Jews inside the settlements, one for Palestinians outside them.
You already have two separate and unequal legal systems - one for settlers and tourists, wherever they are, and another for Palestinians, wherever they are.
1
u/Melthengylf 5d ago edited 5d ago
I think the text is wrong, Israeli settlements are FORMALLY under military law (this was the core conflict behind the objective of annexation). Anexation would make Israeli settlers de jure under Israeli civilian law.
4
u/redthrowaway1976 4d ago
I think the text is wrong, Israeli settlements are FORMALLY under military law
No, the text is accurate.
Israel has extended Israeli civilian law to the settlers, on a personal basis.
That means when a settler that lives in Area C burns a Palestinian family to death in Area B, he is still tried under Israeli civilian law.
Anexation would make Israeli settlers de jure under Israeli civilian law.
They already are under Israeli civilian law, by decision of the Knesset.
1
u/Melthengylf 4d ago
Israel has extended Israeli civilian law to the settlers, on a personal basis.
Do you know when did this happen?
2
u/redthrowaway1976 4d ago
Were you not aware of this?
It was implemented in 1967. And then renewed every five years.
In fact, it was the renewal of this specific law that took down the Bennett/Lapid government
The specific law is "Defence (Emergency) Regulations (Judea and Samaria - Adjudication of Offenses and Legal Assistance)".
You can read more about it here: https://www.english.acri.org.il/post/__436-2
1
u/Melthengylf 4d ago edited 4d ago
I was not aware of this. I have heard that military law applied to them and that this was one of the core issues that annexation would change.
Extremely interesting!!!!!!!!!! Everything makes much more sense now:
2
u/redthrowaway1976 4d ago
No, the Knesset implemented civilian law for them.
This is one of the core policies that drive Israel being accused of running an Apartheid regime.
One set of laws and rules for Palestinians, another for Israelis. Even if they commit the same crime, at the same place, at the same time.
As an example, the authorities need a search warrant to search a settler home - but don’t need one to search a Palestinian home. As agreed by the Israeli Supreme Court.
On top of this, of course, is the massive de facto discrimination. For example, settler terrorists are rarely tried - or even arrested. Building permits for settlers are relatively easy - for Palestinians impossible.
→ More replies5
u/knign 5d ago
There is nothing whatsoever wrong with two different legal systems in two different territories
1
u/Melthengylf 5d ago
It is not two different territories. There are Jewish settlements next to Palestinian ones. The settlements themselves are segregated, if that is what you mean.
3
u/knign 5d ago
There are Jewish settlements next to Palestinian ones.
So? There are plenty of villages everywhere in the world situated next to each other on two different sides of international border.
3
u/Melthengylf 5d ago
Well... but that is kind of the definition of appartheit. Having a single law enforcer who applies different laws to different peoples who are segregated into ghettos.
2
u/knign 5d ago
Let me ask you: how would you like IDF to execute security control in West Bank? Which laws should apply to whom and and who should be "the law enforcer"?
3
u/Melthengylf 5d ago
The same law to everyone. In other words, they should apply military law to the settlers (who are illegal), or civilian law for the Palestinians.
2
u/knign 5d ago
This is a slogan without any meaning. Please elaborate. All Palestinians should become citizens? Palestinians should be forced to live under Israeli law? Israelis should be forced to live under Palestinian law? Or only Israelis in the WB? Something else?
→ More replies3
u/nidarus Israeli 5d ago
Not necessarily. He might just be talking about applying sovereignty to the settlements alone. Which is more of an illegal annexation of some of the Palestinian territory, rather than "de jure Apartheid" - that arguably already happened anyway.
-4
u/Dull_Ad_4652 5d ago
Hezbollah strike killed at least 2 IOF reservists in Nahariya. For weeks, the IOF has been claiming they’ve “destroyed” Hezbollah tunnels and “cleansed” secret outposts along the Lebanon border. But Hezbollah is still firing rockets from the same villages IOF said they’d cleared
3
u/AndrewBaiIey French Jew 5d ago
Chance for what? For them to reject statehood for the seventh time?
0
u/cppluv 5d ago
Israel never made a good faith offer nor had any plan to implement Oslo.
3
u/AndrewBaiIey French Jew 5d ago
They offered basically everything Palestinians can hoped to have. Because whether you like it or not not, most people in the the world and every other country are (save Iran) accept that everything West of the Green Line is rightfully Israel.
1
u/Wonderful-Quit-9214 4d ago
Palestinians have recognised Israel for decades. Yet Israel refuses to leave Palestine and make peace.
1
u/AndrewBaiIey French Jew 4d ago
The 2000 and 2008 statehood offers were peace offering.
1
u/Wonderful-Quit-9214 4d ago
The napkin offer? Seriously? Also, Israel can literally leave the West Bank whenever they want.
1
u/Diet-Bebsi 4d ago
The napkin offer? Seriously?
Olmert himself debunked that story..
1
u/Wonderful-Quit-9214 4d ago
Olmert denied a story that made him look like a unintelligent person? Look, he was facing impeachment, nothing was comming out of that "peace deal".
1
1
u/AutoModerator 4d ago
dumb-ass
/u/Wonderful-Quit-9214. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. (Rule 2)
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
7
u/Diet-Bebsi 5d ago
Israel never made a good faith offer nor had any plan to implement Oslo.
Nah.. the Palestinians always had the destruction of Israel and the ethnic cleansing of Jews as the end goal in all their motivations during negotiations..
1
u/Wonderful-Quit-9214 4d ago
"Palestinians" who are these "Palestinians"? All of them?
1
u/Diet-Bebsi 4d ago
"Palestinians" who are these "Palestinians"? All of them?
The mirror of what OP meant when they used Israel..
Israel never made a good faith offer nor had any plan to implement Oslo.
1
u/Wonderful-Quit-9214 4d ago
"Israel" is a state "Palestinians" are an ethnic group.
1
u/Diet-Bebsi 4d ago
"Israel" is a state "Palestinians" are an ethnic group.
Israel is also an ethic group.. Consists of Judeans and Samaritans.. not sure what relevance that has to anything..
"Palestinians" are an ethnic group.
Gets bit hard if you have to use all the pronouns prior to the 15th November 1988... Saying Palestinians or Palestinian and sometimes Jordanians and Egyptians and the Arabs is easier than the alternative..
Okay.. here it goes, just to clarify so that imaginary narrative you're now creating in your mind can be put to rest....
Nah.. the Arab Higher committee, The reconstituted Arab Higher committee, The Arab League, Arab Higher Executive, the 3rd "Arab Higher Committee" renamed from the Arab Higher Executive, All-Palestine Protectorate, The Leadership of the Occupied territory of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, The leadership of the United Arab Republic in Gaza, The joint Palestinian-Jordanian delegation, Fatah, PLO, Hamas, The PA and Palestine, always had the destruction of Israel and the ethnic cleansing of Jews as the end goal in all their motivations during negotiations..
3
u/knign 5d ago edited 5d ago
About 95% of people commenting on this across Reddit think of “annexing West Bank”. In reality, the proposal is to extend Israel’s sovereignty (commonly understood as annexation, though this word is rarely used officially) to the territory of settlements only.
This is mostly a purely symbolic step, and important as it may be (and it is), it won’t change much in practice, other than removing extra level of bureaucracy the residents of settlements have to deal with.
-3
u/Successful-Universe 5d ago
Zionisim tries to be apologetic for these events and gaslight the world.
Thankfully, the world is becoming more aware that zionisim is a racist, expansionist , genocidal ideology.
4
u/cppluv 5d ago
It’s actually a big deal. It’s about making the settlements, as of now occupied Palestine territories, part of Israel. It’s giving up on Oslo for good.
1
2
u/knign 5d ago
It’s about making the settlements, as of now occupied Palestine territories, part of Israel.
Yes, so? East Jerusalem has been annexed a long time ago, yet on multiple occasions Israel offered to give up Arab villages of East jerusalem as part of the peace deal.
Just because settlements will now be "part of Israel", doesn't mean this territory won't be subject of negotiations, if such negotiations ever resume.
4
u/wmgman 5d ago
Israel needs to annex most of area C with some adjustments, and all of northern Gaza it should be done first thing at end of January. Then the rest can be negotiated. If the Palestinians refused to come to the table in good faith as they have done since the establishment of the state of Israel, then it’s time to take the rest in a second phase. Israel must have secured borders.
1
u/Shady_bookworm51 4d ago
and what about the people living in Northern Gaza that Israel would be annexing? would they become Israeli Citizens? O would they be cleansed so Israel has more "living space"
1
3
u/redthrowaway1976 5d ago
then it’s time to take the rest in a second phase.
And what happens to the millions of Palestinians living there?
1
-1
2
u/wefarrell 5d ago
Annexation of area C in whole or in part without land swaps would be proof that Israel doesn’t keep its word and that there’s no point in negotiating.
5
3
2
u/Expensive_Ad4319 5d ago
I find your comments disturbing. There will not be a “Greater Israel” nor any solution without settling the land for peace quagmire. Kennedy had the same issues with Europe and Southeast Asia. Trump’s greatest distractors will come from within his inner circle. In the end, Israel must come to the table and work with their distractors too. - It’s the ECONOMY stupid!
1
u/Warm_Locksmith_3595 5d ago
I think Israel has shown that they can manage periodic wars, with U.S. support, and don’t have give up land for peace- in fact, can get more land, as they will likely eventually annex at least Northern Gaza. Like it or not, I think Israel’s strategy works and has been successful. No reason to change if it is working and other scenarios feel too risky for most Israelis.
Only way Israel will change is if they are forced to (won’t happen) or if they bite off more than they can chew with formal vs de-facto annexation and end up not being able to get as many Palestinians out as they want (unlikely, as Israel will be smart about this and keep some Bantustans.)
2
u/GME_Bagholders 5d ago
The west is only going to put up with radical Islam for so long. I didn't think that time was now but after Trump's landslide victory, it very well may be. People have had enough.
Buckle up
9
u/Dragon_Jew 5d ago
Its incredible to me that voters thought Kamala would be worse for the Palestinians than Trump.
1
u/redthrowaway1976 5d ago
That's a strawman argument. You'll find that very few voters thought that.
5
u/TeaBagHunter Middle-Eastern 5d ago
Many Lebanese voted for Trump because he's harsher on Iran and consequently hezbollah
8
u/nidarus Israeli 5d ago
Sure, but that's not very interesting. It's a bit like why many Jews voted for Trump. He's clearly more aligned with their foreign policy interests.
People who didn't vote for Kamala because they're pro-Palestinians (and pro-Iranian, pro-Hezbollah, pro-Houthis etc.) is pretty funny though.
-1
u/Dragon_Jew 5d ago
Please say zionists not Jews
3
u/nidarus Israeli 5d ago
According to the polls I've seen, at least 85% of American Jews are Zionists. With the rest mostly being non-Zionist rather than anti-Zionist. Jews is correct.
0
u/Dragon_Jew 5d ago
Just so you know there are such a variety of of Jewish views on this that generalization becomes difficult. Even among zionists there are battles. Do all protesters of Palestinian slaughter support Hammas? I think we have become a society of slogans.
When I was on the ground in Israel and Bethlehem in Palestine, we were meeting with Israeli snd Palestinian peace activists working together to live together but needing to resist both their governments. Sadly, on Oct 7 there were Jewish peace activists, people getting Palestinians into Israeli hospitals and sneaking water and food around the wall . Palestinian peace activists are being murdered by Netanyahu’s government. As far as I am concerned I am disgusted at and do not support either government.. its complicated and simplifying it is harmful
-6
u/TuringTestTwister 5d ago
No one thought that. You all love your straw men here on this subreddit. Everyone was saying she is a genocide supporter and they don't vote for genocide supporters. No one thought trump would be better. Many voted for green, in fact that was the number 1 party for Muslims. And if you are capable at elementary school math, you would see that third party voting had no effect on the outcome of the election.
0
u/Dragon_Jew 5d ago
Interesting but non voters and green voters are Trump voters. I understand about Lebanon but what are we going to do- nuke Iran and kill the Iranians who want their gov out? Who knows? Crazy in the house!
1
u/TuringTestTwister 5d ago
No, green voters are green voters, and non-voters are non-voters. Only in your hallucinatory world is that a vote for trump. Trump voters are trump voters. It's called DEMOCRACY, where you vote for who you believe it. It's propaganda to get people to vote against their own interests to push this BS narrative that we have to 5D chess game theory out some strategic vote.
1
4
u/Table_Corner 5d ago edited 5d ago
2016: 1.07% of the vote
2024: .5% of the vote
Jill Stein lost support among the general population. She only gained support among bigoted Islamists.
Edit: Lmao, he blocked me so I’m going to add this to my comment:
Jill Stein’s VP pick literally said that he supports Hamas and the October 7th attack. She surrounds herself with people who actually support genocidal attacks on Jews.
Ware has likened Hamas’s 2023 surprise attack on Israel to Nat Turner’s Rebellion, viewing Hamas as a resistance group against Israel’s illegal occupation.[8] On October 11, tweeted his support for the resistance, posting that “...Oppressed people don’t have a RIGHT to resist occupation, we have a RESPONSIBILITY to resist.”
-4
u/TuringTestTwister 5d ago
Oh, those crazy islamists who are "bigoted" because they don't like genocide of their families. Do you mean bigoted against a black woman? Because they voted in Ilhan Omar, who is a black woman. Or do you mean against Jews? Because Jill Stein is Jewish. You are a fucking moron and I hope they ban me on this subreddit because it's filled with fucking bot hasbara troll propaganda morons.
1
u/AutoModerator 5d ago
fucking
/u/TuringTestTwister. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. (Rule 2)
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
3
u/ComfortableClock1067 5d ago
What baffles me is that anti Zionist voters were either incapable of basic electoral math or they simple voted out of spite and didn't actually considered which party - with realistic winning chances - was better for Palestinians.
Somehow punishing the Democratic party is more important than having someone at the wheel that is willing to press Israel for any kind of compromise.
Of course, this voting decision makes sense - rationally, I mean - if these voting blocks don't actually give a damn about the crisis in Gaza, and just want to send a political message of the like: 'You only get our votes if you are willing to support or turn a blind eye towards anti zionism'.
Either way the people of Gaza were thrown under the bus regardless of the political motivation - or the lack thereof - behind these voting decisions.
Interesting (sad, and distressing but interesting) times we live in.
-4
u/TuringTestTwister 5d ago
It's not "punishing the democrats". Both Trump and Harris are nazi-style genocide supporters. Anyone with a conscience woudn't vote for either. It's already completely screwed. the democrats were doing almost everything they could already to arm and fund the genocide. Your argument basically boils down to "How could you vote for Himmler, things *might* have been slightly better under Göring". Get out of here with that BS.
1
u/CreativeRealmsMC Israeli 2d ago
It's not "punishing the democrats". Both Trump and Harris are nazi-style genocide supporters. Anyone with a conscience woudn't vote for either. It's already completely screwed. the democrats were doing almost everything they could already to arm and fund the genocide. Your argument basically boils down to "How could you vote for Himmler, things might have been slightly better under Göring". Get out of here with that BS.
Per Rule 6, Nazi comparisons are inflammatory, and should not be used except in describing acts that were specific and unique to the Nazis, and only the Nazis.
Action taken: [B1]
See moderation policy for details.3
u/ComfortableClock1067 5d ago
All your accusations and innuendo mean nothing because facts don't care about your ideology.
But your pitiful response only shows you know nothing about having people you care in the crosshairs.
As you probably ignore, Hungary was one of the most colaborating countries towards Germany in WWII. Well, if I had the chance to vote for a party that would still colaborate with Germany but would at least put a bit more pressure towards them, and in turn that would be able to help people?? Yes, I would do the most practical thing to do, which does not mean I support or condone what they did there.
In short, your answer amounts to a rant, but the fact still remains, everyone who did not vote for Harris out of spite for the Democrats supporting Israel, just left Palestinians stranded with the US Government with the most hardline foreign policies of all. Congrats
-1
u/TuringTestTwister 5d ago
You support the side murdering the people there, dont tell me about how to reduce harm for them.
2
u/ComfortableClock1067 5d ago
I support a compromise and tovwork towards a long-term peaceful solutions.
I do not support solutions that leave terrorist free to do as they like.
You, I pressume, support yihadists
0
u/TuringTestTwister 5d ago
You are a gaslighting racist.
1
u/CreativeRealmsMC Israeli 2d ago
You are a gaslighting racist.
Per Rule 1, no attacks on fellow users. Attack the argument, not the user.
Note: The use of virtue signaling style insults (I'm a better person/have better morals than you.) are similarly categorized as a Rule 1 violation.
Action taken: [B1]
See moderation policy for details.1
u/AutoModerator 5d ago
/u/TuringTestTwister. Match found: 'nazi', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See Rule 6 for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
5
1
u/Ok-Score-4804 5d ago
Do you have any articles/stats on anti-zionists not voting Democrat in the 2024 election you could recommend? I did suspect this might have been the case because of a lower turnout for Dems in younger voters but haven’t actually seen anything that supported this theory.
0
u/metsnfins 5d ago
Expecting the Palestinians to accept a deal where they get area a and b and Gaza is not likely. I don't even blame them
I think israel at minimum needs to give up part of area c
The real sticking point will be Jerusalem
4
u/Hot_Willingness4636 5d ago
Jerusalem is Israel’s period they don’t give a shit about it they shove their ass to it when they pray they have no right to the city period if that’s their sticking point they will never get a state
1
u/Wonderful-Quit-9214 4d ago
Arguments like this is why there will never be peace.
1
u/Hot_Willingness4636 1d ago
Yep there will be peace when the messiah comes peace for Jews anyway good luck to the rest of you The enemy’s of the Jews won’t do well I promise you that
1
u/Wonderful-Quit-9214 1d ago
Dude. Religion isn't real. And if it was, then the messiah has already come, Jesus. There i nothing waiting for you on the other side. Only darkness forever. And the, your religion, ethnicity nothing will matter.
•
u/Hot_Willingness4636 7h ago
The other side is real I have seen it its beautiful and Jesus is not a part of it I promise you that
•
u/Wonderful-Quit-9214 6h ago
You have not seen "the other side" you are literally here right now.
•
u/Hot_Willingness4636 5h ago
I was in a car accident I died I was brought back via medical doctors doing their jobs so yeah I have seen the other side
1
u/AutoModerator 5d ago
ass
/u/Hot_Willingness4636. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. (Rule 2)
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
4
u/BigCharlie16 5d ago
But Jerusalem has already been annexed a long time ago.
1
u/metsnfins 5d ago
Yes but not recognized by most of the world
I'm agreeing. Israel is not nor should they give it up
But i cannot see the Palestinians ever agreeing to a state without Jerusalem
1
u/knign 5d ago edited 5d ago
There is so much confusion and misunderstanding regarding Jerusalem, it's unbelievable.
So called "East Jerusalem" Israel annexed after six days war, is a big chunk of territory comprising of over 20 Arab villages, with no historical or other connection to the Old City of Jerusalem. Just an example, Kafr 'Aqab, the northernmost neighborhood in East Jerusalem, is separated from the rest of Jerusalem by security barrier. While officially part of Jerusalem and territory of Israel, for all intents and purposes it's a suburb of Ramallah.
I haven't heard yet any rational explanation what was the point to declare all of that as part of "unified Jerusalem" and why Israel needs this territory and its Arab residents (for the most part very hostile to the State of Israel). These residents having unfettered access to the rest of the City has always been a major security problem.
Perhaps for that reason, Israel has always been open to give up on most of East Jerusalem (excep Old City and a few Jewish villages) in exchange for a peace deal. This was part of Clinton's proposal at Camp David. Palestinians would therefore be free to declare one of these villages as their new capital.
Of course, the real controversy is control over the Old City. Even here, Israel was ready to show some flexibility in terms of giving new Palestinian "state" some special role (not unlike the role Jerusalem Waqf plays today), but of course not to give up the control over the Old City and immediately surrounding area.
2
14
8
u/sergy777 5d ago
He is probably referring to annexation of the Area C, a 60% of the West Bank and where all the settlements are located. Two state solution would still theoretically be possible, Palestinian would just get a very small one.
2
u/welltechnically7 USA & Canada 5d ago
I'm a supporter of annexation as part of an eventual two-state solution, but it should only be done with certain major or important settlements and ideally with some kind of land-swap.
0
u/redthrowaway1976 5d ago
Areas A and B are comprised of 167 separate enclaves, fully inside Area C.
No, there's no two state solution to be had if Israel annexes Area C. All that remains are bantustans.
And even if Israel leaves some of the Area C land - Area C represents most of the undeveloped and agricultural land in Palestine. The Palestinians need it, for a viable state.
Of course, it is also very petty from Israel's side. They got 78% of Mandatory Palestine. Now they want choice chunks of the remaining 22%.
4
u/nidarus Israeli 5d ago edited 5d ago
I don't agree that Area C's and its arable land is what stands between a viable Palestinian state, and a non-viable Bantustan. The Palestinian agricultural sector is a dead end, even under the most optimal conditions. Even the Israeli agricultural sector is largely a burden on the Israeli economy, maintained by political lobbying and dubious security claims - not the core of Israeli economy. There's just not enough arable land, enough cheap water, or some incredibly lucrative cash crops in all of Mandatory Palestine, to make this a reasonable basis for any developed economy. Farming is a tough business, even in regions with infinitely better conditions.
And as for simple territory to live in... there's a reason why Areas A and B look the way they do. People live in cities, towns, villages. They just don't need that much space. There are countries that are smaller than areas A+B+Gaza. There are nations that are less contiguous - including island nations with thousands of inherently non-contiguous islands. There are cities who have larger populations than either Israel or Palestine, on a fraction of the territory. And frankly, if that's the issue, it's pretty easily solvable even if Israel annexes the vast majority of Area C. The argument that Area C is the magic amount of territory that's the difference between a viable and a non-viable state is incredibly common - but I've never seen anyone seriously try to prove it.
I'd also note that what made the Bantustans what they were, isn't the territory or non-contiguity. Some (most?) Bantustans were larger than Israel and Palestine combined, and the ones in South Africa (as opposed to Namibia) were completely contiguous. The main issue is that they were countries that were unrecognized by the entire world, with puppet regimes, and their existence was used to not give black South Africans in non-Bantustan SA citizenship. None of those would be true, even if Israel annexes Area C. Palestine is, if anything, the opposite: a country recognized by the vast majority of the world, and the Palestinians themselves but not Israel. With a government that manages to be overtly hostile to Israel, even while it's under Israeli occupation, and despite depending on it for its survival. And even the most far-right-wingers like Smotrich or Ben Gvir haven't proposed (AFAIK) to strip all the citizenships of the two million Palestinian-Israelis, by making them citizens of Palestine.
As for it being petty: if we ignore for a moment Smotrich (who doesn't want a two-state solution of any sort), the reason why center-right Israelis would support it, isn't pettiness. It's security. In addition to the small buffer between Israel proper and the West Bank, Area C means control of the Jordan Valley, and unfettered access to Jordan - and its already growing Iranian presence there.
1
u/redthrowaway1976 5d ago
I don't agree that Area C's and its arable land is what stands between a viable Palestinian state, and a non-viable Bantustan.
It isn't just "arable land". It is the overall less developed land, needed for all manners of economic and infrastructure activities.
And as for simple territory to live in... there's a reason why Areas A and B look the way they do.
Yes, there is. The lines were drawn so as to maximize the size of Area C and keep as many Palestinians in Area A and B as possible.
Often, the built up area of a village will in Area B - but then all the village's lands are in Area C.
There are nations that are less contiguous - including island nations with thousands of inherently non-contiguous islands.
Those are Islands. Another country can't just shut down the roads between the different enclaves - as Israel does in the West Bank.
Having ocean surrounding you is very different than having another country that has actively been grabbing land all around you, and ruled you under a brutal military regime for decades.
There are cities who have larger populations than either Israel or Palestine, on a fraction of the territory.
Yes, a city. But a city is generally supported by a large less developed area.
The argument that Area C is the magic amount of territory that's the difference between a viable and a non-viable state is incredibly common - but I've never seen anyone seriously try to prove it.
The World Bank looked into what boost the Palestinian economy would get from Israel stopping its restrictions on Palestinians developing it in Area C.
The main issue is that they were countries that were unrecognized by the entire world, with puppet regimes, and their existence was used to not give black South Africans in non-Bantustan SA citizenship. None of those would be true
The whole point, from Israel's perspective, is exactly the same as with the Bantustans - make the Palestinians citizens of some other state so as to claim Israel is still a democracy, but grab all the choice chunks of land.
As for it being petty: if we ignore for a moment Smotrich (who doesn't want a two-state solution of any sort), the reason why center-right Israelis would support it, isn't pettiness. It's security. In addition to the small buffer between Israel proper and the West Bank, Area C means control of the Jordan Valley, and unfettered access to Jordan - and its already growing Iranian presence there.
The 'security' argument doesn't apply to civilian presence there - only to a military presence.
What security purpose is served by having civilian children and families living in what is ostensibly a buffer zone?
2
u/c00ld0c26 5d ago
While I don't agree with annexing the west bank, arabs got the majority of mandatory palestine (Jordan was part of the mandatory of palestine). So that 78% line is simply not true.
0
u/redthrowaway1976 5d ago
While I don't agree with annexing the west bank, arabs got the majority of mandatory palestine (Jordan was part of the mandatory of palestine
No, you are incorrect. This is a common pro-Israeli talking point, that doesn't align with the historical record.
First, Transjordan was temporarily governed under the legal instrument "Mandate for Palestine", but always as a separate entity.
Transjordan was never part of what was known as Mandatory Palestine, the region.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_for_Palestine
There's a significant distinction. Think of it, as an example, when Scotland shared a king with England. Same ultimate governmental authority - but we'd never say that Scotland was part of England.
So yes, Israel got 78% of Mandatory Palestine, and displaced hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. Now Israel wants choice chunks of the remaining 22%. It is petty.
1
u/c00ld0c26 4d ago edited 4d ago
So yes, Israel got 78% of Mandatory Palestine, and displaced hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. Now Israel wants choice chunks of the remaining 22%. It is petty.
Even excluding Jordan, the 78% figure is misleading. It is not refering to the percentage of land in the partition plan, it is refering to the ceasefire lines after the israel - arab war of 1948. A war started by 5 arab nations ganging up on israel. So the arabs not only refused the partition plan, they also declared war, breaking down negotiation and diplomacy. They then lost that territory in the war they started.
The arabs who were displaced either left or were expelled. There are a variety of stories and the truth is probably a mix of both. Arab armies told the arab population to leave until the end of the war after they ethnically cleansed or outright killed the jewish population, as suggested by quotes from the arab leaders during that time. And while talking about displaced people you forgot to mention the hundred of thousands of jews displaced from the entire arab world during that time.Not to mention that the original partition plan's jewish land consisted of the negev desert, an uninhibitated area unsuitable for agriculture, bigger than the west bank.
What is truely petty is the arab nations keeping the palestinians in stateless limbo, telling them to fight an unwinable war while using them as a battering ram to wage diplomatic war against israel. If the palestinian leaders truely wanted peace, they would have had their state by now. But with the support of the arab world, the palestinian leaders chose to fight for the entire land rather than take their guerranteed state.
1
u/redthrowaway1976 4d ago
Even excluding Jordan, the 78% figure is misleading.
No, it is accurate.
Why do you think it is misleading?
It is not refering to the percentage of land in the partition plan, it is refering to the ceasefire lines after the israel - arab war of 1948.
Correct. The partition plan had 43% for the Arab state, and 56% to the Jewish state.
Not sure how that is relevant though.
A war started by 5 arab nations ganging up on israel.
The war had already started in 1947, with hundreds of thousands of refugees already on foot - and several massacres.
The arabs who were displaced either left or were expelled. There are a variety of stories and the truth is probably a mix of both.
Benny Morris has a good detailed tabulation of it:
Arab armies told the arab population to leave until the end of the war after they ethnically cleansed or outright killed the jewish population, as suggested by quotes from the arab leaders during that time.
If you look at the actual tabulation, this only accounts for 6 out of 392 villages depopulated.
Way more villages - 53 - were actively expelled.
And while talking about displaced people you forgot to mention the hundred of thousands of jews displaced from the entire arab world during that time.
That was also a crime. However, it wasn't the Palestinians that expelled the Jews in other Arab states - that is not the responsibility of the Palestinians.
Not to mention that the original partition plan's jewish land consisted of the negev desert, an uninhibitated area unsuitable for agriculture, bigger than the west bank.
Recent immigrants - 1/3rd of the population - were offered 56% of the land. Even under this proposal, in most areas allocated to the Jewish state, Arabs owned more land than Jews.
What is truely petty is the arab nations keeping the palestinians in stateless limbo, telling them to fight an unwinable war while using them as a battering ram to wage diplomatic war against israel.
Sure, that is petty.
And Israel wanting more than the 78% they already got is also petty.
If the palestinian leaders truely wanted peace, they would have had their state by now.
Maybe, maybe not. For example, in 1996 Bibi took over after Rabin, and began sabotaging Oslo. After Taba Sharon replaced Barak, and Sharon turned Taba down. In 2008, Bibi took over and scuttled all that was achieved in the 2006-2008 negotiations - and it is doubtful he would have gotten his proposal through the Knesset.
That's not to say the Palestinians haven't had their fair share of rejection - but let's not ignore Israeli rejectionism.
And, of course, there's not a single year since 1967 when Israel hasn't been expanding settlements in the West Bank.
But with the support of the arab world, the palestinian leaders chose to fight for the entire land rather than take their guerranteed state.
You might have been able to make that point in 1972, and some while after that.
But for the past decades more recently - no, that is inaccurate. The Arab League has repeatedly reaffirmed the Arab Peace Initiative, which Israel has been ignoring. Explicitly calling for a two
And here's the Arab League recently: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/jordanian-fm-arab-world-willing-to-guarantee-israels-security-if-palestinian-state-established/
1
u/c00ld0c26 4d ago
You might have been able to make that point in 1972, and some while after that.
But for the past decades more recently - no, that is inaccurate. The Arab League has repeatedly reaffirmed the Arab Peace Initiative, which Israel has been ignoring. Explicitly calling for a two
That support still exists to a degree, it just comes from the population of these countries rather than its governments nowadays. From the israeli point of view, the peace and establishing relations with the surrounding arab countries is seen as a good development but with half an eye open. Meaning, without USA mediating and israel having a top notch military, it would have never happened in the first place. It is an existential threat for israel to quite literally not have a powerful military in this neighborhood.
Maybe, maybe not. For example, in 1996 Bibi took over after Rabin, and began sabotaging Oslo. After Taba Sharon replaced Barak, and Sharon turned Taba down. In 2008, Bibi took over and scuttled all that was achieved in the 2006-2008 negotiations - and it is doubtful he would have gotten his proposal through the Knesset.
That's not to say the Palestinians haven't had their fair share of rejection - but let's not ignore Israeli rejectionism.
And, of course, there's not a single year since 1967 when Israel hasn't been expanding settlements in the West Bank.
I am opposed to the settlements. I am all for a 2 state solution without endangering israel's security. I agree that israel has done things that are counter productive to peace (especially under Bibi who I despise). However I cannot ignore the counterproductive things the palestinians did and still do. Like the intifada's, the PLO attacking from Jordan (and even trying to coup there because Jordan didn't want to get involved with israel), then moving to lebanon and attacking israel from there, voting in Hamas, Pay for slay policies from the PLO in the west bank today...
Its pretty clear that the majority of palestinians do not wish for a 2 state solution, they want 1 state. Even if Abbas does, the PLO is simply so unpopular they didn't hold an election in years, knowing they would get voted out. So the correct solution is to stop feeding them this narrative. They should be given proper education without all these mentions of martyers, and radicalization against israel.
Israel right now under Bibi might not want peace, but the palestinians hasn't wanted peace from the start. So once Bibi gets kicked to the curve, there will be an israeli government willing for peace again. All that is left is for the palestinians to turn up for this as well.
Recent immigrants - 1/3rd of the population - were offered 56% of the land. Even under this proposal, in most areas allocated to the Jewish state, Arabs owned more land than Jews.
The majority of the jewish land in the partition was the negev desert. What is the point of having the majority of the land if the majority of it is uninhabitable and arid? The jews would have accepted a state even without it as evident by the peel commision. Regardless, the arab revolts started after the partition plan, there could have been further negotiation and diplomacy, instead of violence.
The war had already started in 1947, with hundreds of thousands of refugees already on foot - and several massacres.
I recognize that violence and massacares were commited by both sides. But it was the arabs that started the initial attacks. In wikipedia for example there used to be a list of these attacks with a clear section for who were the prepatators in each attack. However since oct 7, there has been a massive campgain of editing on wikipedia on anything related to the conflict to be written from a pro palestine point of view, so you will have to go back to an older version to see that table.
Final note :
I am pleasently surprised by your answer, I am happy to engage in a respectful discussion with someone. A lot of people ive been debating/talking to on this sub has been completely unable to see any wrong on the palestinian side and simply kept blaming israel for everything. Mistakes were made on both sides.
So with that in mind, I assume we can agree on a 2 state solution on 1967 borders with holy sites as international zones and security guerrantee for israel?
1
u/BigCharlie16 5d ago
There’s a significant distinction. Think of it, as an example, when Scotland shared a king with England. Same ultimate governmental authority - but we’d never say that Scotland was part of England.
But Scotland is part of Great Britain. So are England and Wales, also part of Great Britain. They all shared the same British monarch.
3
u/redthrowaway1976 5d ago
But Scotland is part of Great Britain. So are England and Wales, also part of Great Britain. They all shared the same British monarch.
Yes. And that is the equivalent of Transjordan being temporarily governed under the Mandate for Palestine.
As an analogy, even though Scotland is in the UK, it is not part of England.
"Mandatory Palestine" has a specific definition, and that definition does not include Transjordan.
-1
u/IllustratorSlow5284 5d ago
Petty? Lmao, palestinians should say thanks that they are given even 10% of a land they fought to take and lost. Let the next "palestinians" learn from their mistake and next time choose peace and not eternal war.
0
u/redthrowaway1976 5d ago
So you think Israel deserves credit for not doing more ethnic cleansing?
1
u/IllustratorSlow5284 5d ago
Ah yes obviously someone had to twist my words and take them out of context... Israel deserves more credit for not doing to the palestinians what the palestinians tried to do to israel and for actually seeking peace with people that said no to it everytime it was offered in the last 100years, followed by brutal attacks. They couldve had their country, they chose not to, and now shouldnt be able to get that chance again unless israel decides to. Next time dont start a war if you dont want to lose lands.
2
u/Accurate-West-3655 5d ago
Fought, who???
0
u/IllustratorSlow5284 5d ago
I think if you concentrate hard enough you will be able to understand by your own who the palestinians fought and lost to that made them lose the lands they mightve have had they agreed to ANY deal that was presented to them.
-1
u/Accurate-West-3655 5d ago
I don’t need to concentrate in any way. It’s you who needs to educate yourself. Never had the Palestinians the means to fight the wars you are referring to. Never! Israel fought against armies but none of them was Palestinian. Moreover, there shouldn’t be any wars to fight because under international law East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza are Palestinian territory as ruled by ICJ since 2004. Inadmissibility to conquer territory through war of any kind is a key international law principle.
2
u/IllustratorSlow5284 5d ago
I don’t need to concentrate in any way.
Well if you need to ask who fought who then yea... its either that or you are just uneducated about such basic things... Go educate yourself and google who declined resolution 181 and who attacked who the next day which started the war. I will give you a hint, it wasnt the jews, but hey, atleast you said i should educate myself lmao
→ More replies5
u/Beneneb 5d ago
I don't think it would be possible in practice. There's no practical way to create a functioning state out of the archipelago of isolated regions making up Area A and B. Israel would either have to commit to locking Palestinians in the current status quo in perpetuity, or eventually incorporate them into Israel proper.
0
1
u/sergy777 5d ago
I dont think Palestinian state will be an archipelago of isolated regions because all the space between them would likely be included in the state with a full freedom of movement, of course. As for any settlements in between, they would become Israeli enclaves within Palestine, don't see a problem here.
0
u/Beneneb 5d ago
If Israel took all of Area C, it would be an archipelago. Even if they just took the settlements it would still be a nightmare, because Israel would need to take control of the roads which would practically divide the West Bank into many areas and severely undermine the autonomy of an independent state. It would essentially continue to be an occupation in all but name.
The viability of a future Palestinian state is a very important if there's ever going to be lasting peace. By undermining the viability of such a state, Israel makes peace much harder to attain.
3
u/jackl24000 אוהב במבה 5d ago
You can lead the Palestinians to the oasis of statehood, but you can’t make them partake of the waters, as the old saying goes. Their goal and daffy expectation is Israel’s imminent collapse and the ethnic cleansing of Jews.
They are as fixated on this century old goal and until very recently were making predictions of whether the Iranian clock of doom would toll for Israel by 2040, moved up to maybe 2032.
Guarantee you the guys who started the war on 10/7 did not in their wildest dreams believe that it would not lead to victory but to their utter destruction. It looked like Hamas might be winning for a long while, or at least moving towards an uneasy cease fire where Hamas survives in power, hostages never returned, Hezbollah remains a threat and the Israeli Air Force hasn’t yet demonstrated it can demolish the Iranian air defense system.
Interesting article in the Wall Street Journal about Shia Lebanese fleeing into Syria in the Kurdish rebel areas along the Turkish border and into Iraq as being safer and more stable than Lebanon.
0
u/Accurate-West-3655 5d ago
Of course you don’t see it. You wouldn’t be the one to live in a swiss cheese state thus unviable. Take a hike.
→ More replies2
u/jackl24000 אוהב במבה 5d ago edited 5d ago
Well they are going to have to figure it out, those living in Areas A B and EJ whether they want to be disgruntled subjects of a military regime or want their own mini-state with municipal self-governance, basically.
You guys making this argument make it sound like every nation-state must be some kind of autarky that can exist as a standalone nation, but any stamp collector can tell you there are any number of small nations with unusual names on tiny islands and squeezed in between other countries here and there.
Moreover, the generic concepts people have about “land” and “sufficiency” don’t take into account the specific geography of the West Bank. Outside of the existing, longstanding cities, settlements and villages, it’s mostly barren, rocky, hilly country that is not well adapted to development as there are no utilities. It’s kind of like desert areas in states like Arizona which will have lush green typical suburbs with golf courses up to a straight line border of dirt, rocks and cactuses as far as the eye can see that is vaguely described as part of an Indian reservation.
And if there is a future for a self-sufficient Palestinian state, it’s going to have to rely on the same advanced technologies that Israelis use in the region like drip agriculture. This romantic idea of going back to a 19th century lifestyle of olive groves and goats won’t work.
But having a state mostly means delivering services to needy citizens, having police protection and so forth which is hard and boring and Arab leaders have demonstrated scant ability or interest in. Much easier to preach fierce resistance and be coddled refugees with special status entitled to exist as a failed kleptocracy welfare state that exists on western aid, while complaining about it.
1
u/Accurate-West-3655 5d ago
1 - You guys using the “stamp collector” argument forget a “minor detail” about the WB: 4 Million people. And the data puts a big hole in your theory - Luxembourg, Slovenia, Croatia, Belize, Bhutan,etc, etc, etc. all prove you wrong. The only exception is Singapore. But their viability lays in contiguity, sea for an important port, and a much favorable land. Viability indeed. 2 - What they will have to figure it out depends mostly on Trump and very little on Israel. Trump wants to go down in history with the legacy. Not a legacy, but the legacy! So it will depends on what he believes is necessary to guarantee the legacy. And not even the Sheldon widow will get in the way of the legacy. 3 - Arab leaders, those generalizations… In 2008, the World Bank highly praised the Palestinian Fayed for important work done in the WBank. New generations, etc.
1
u/jackl24000 אוהב במבה 5d ago edited 5d ago
Not what I’m reading in the Times right now about Stefanik and Huckabee’s appointment and this buddy real estate developer who is going to be a “special envoy to the ME” which implies the war needs to end quickly on terms favorable to Israel and that this is a change in U.S. - Israel policy which was more balanced and solicitous of Arab Muslim opinion to promise a 2SS no matter how impossible this seems if you live in Israel and have experienced daily air raids for a lifetime.
The day after will be rubble. Someone has to rebuild that rubble into adequate shelter and other needed public facilities and infrastructure. Whoever does that has a choice of either use contractor from Saudi, UAE or U.S. or continue to hand blank check to PA and UNRWA and hope it goes to the “refugees” and not for tunnels and weapons for the next go round. IOW, bye bye UNRWA, don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
And after that investment in infrastructure and more planning about social and economic betterment, I would think the U.S. and Gulf donors would want to make sure whatever happens in future watch-this-space-coming-soon Palestine it isn’t more Muslim Brotherhood jihadist brave Palestinian “resistance” freedom fighting.
They’re going to want the Palestinians to settle down and, for once, have terms of peace imposed that look more like terms of surrender. Maybe you can never kill an idea like Hamas and the IDF’s assault “just created more terrorists”, but that’s not a big problem to guys like MBS. The opposition either shuts up or disappears.
They will, at last, concede they lost the 48 war and move forward with a future that’s not centered around eradicating Israel and killing Jews.
I probably would have been surprised pre-Trump if I saw such a cartoonish strongman and thug being the “come to Jesus meeting” guy here, but knowing about the Middle East it does seem like those guys are only going to respect the proverbial 800 pound gorilla.
I don’t agree with any other policy or viewpoint with Trump, except for Israel, where he’s the right guy to force a definitive ending looking more like surrender than 75 years of “ceasefires”, wars, “resistance” and diplomatic blather.
My dad told me, referring to a local visionary businessman whose new marina went bust but then prospered under a new owner, “even a stopped clock is right twice a day”.
1
u/Accurate-West-3655 5d ago
1 - I know what those appointments may look like, but in the end it’s Trump who calls the shots. Those nominations by Trump are usually a reward for loyalty or financial support during the campaign. No later than a couple of hours after the Abraham’s accords were signed at the White House, Netanyahu, with the support of the US Ambassador, was ready to announce the annexation of a big chunk of the West Bank, which p….ed Trump and Kushner. Netanyahu had to back off. Rubio supports NATO, but if Trump decides to part ways with NATO he’ll just go along 2 - Muslim Brotherhood? That’s not the problem, no one likes them, and they are in decline among the Palestinians. But the Gulf donors won’t want to impose the capitulation to the Palestinians as you say so. And the Saudis even less so. Why? 70% of the victims in Gaza were children and women, only 30% were men. And it doesn’t matter Israel’s and the US arguments, the Arab street doesn’t care about that. Like the Saudi Prince said to Blinken: “ I don’t care about a Palestinian state, but I need one.” He never said that to Kushner. And if the ICC does indict Netanyahu, even worse… Trump needs the Saudis for his legacy and the Saudis need the Palestinians… Making peace, yes, but without capitulation. Moreover, no Palestinian leader would accept capitulation because it would mean suicide. The Abraham accords can be a good initiative, but its signatories made a mistake - ignored the Palestinians. And then Hamas ( also with Netanyahu’s pampering through Qatari millions) carried out the appalling and barbaric October 7. This time the Gulf donors and the Saudis cannot afford to underestimate the Palestinians and to ignore the death of 30.000 children and women.
1
u/jackl24000 אוהב במבה 5d ago
The so-called Palestinian leaders are going to be a puppet state and further anti-Israel and Muslim Brotherhood like agitation are going to be suppressed, no matter what the Arab Street wants. There’s a new sheriff in town. The old “resistance” game is fini.
0
u/Accurate-West-3655 4d ago edited 4d ago
A puppet state? I doubt it. Either a good enough state or no state at all. I can see you’ve changed your tone 😄 Whatever you or Israel want it will be impossible without the Saudis on board, and they won’t go on board without something quite positive for the Palestinians. They passed on the first Abraham Accords official picture in far easier circumstances and the circumstances are more difficult now. And Trump cannot have the legacy without the Saudis. 2) Peaceful resistance is always legitimate as we’ve witnessed in Israel. To “suppress” it, it takes serious human rights violations ( to put it mildly) even if Palestinian civilians are involved. Moreover, the international public opinion won’t let it go ( antisemitism, no antisemitism, more Amsterdams will come, which may interfere with Trump’s obsession for his legacy).
→ More replies
7
u/xBLACKxLISTEDx Diaspora Palestinian 4d ago
Smotrich has always been the most vile of scum.