yes if that is the goal of course. also if working out a solution where israel has to give up some disputed territories, buidling settlements on them makes it look like they are giving up more. i am not doubting the politics of it
Gaza is shooting rockets at Israel. Israel withdrew all settlements from gaza in 2005 hoping it would lead to peace. there was no blockade at first. when hamas got into power and said their goal was to wipe israel off the map, the blockade started, and egypt joined in
Israel did not withdrew all settlements from Gaza hoping it would lead to peace. The Israeli disengagement from Gaza was a right-wing plan at its core and peace was never even close to being one of it’s goals.
Not that peace was going to be an achievable goal either way, but it is probably the 2nd most important step in eliminating the chances of it happening in our life time, after the Camp David failure of 2000.
the reason i bring up condeming israel and not hamas is because how can anyone think people are using good faith when the condemn israel and not hamas. The Us brought up a resolution in 2018 to codemn hamas terrorist activity in the UN and it got voted down, but israel is condemnly monthly by the UN. How is israel supposed to take the condemnations seriously when they know the actors levying the condemnations are not acting in good faith
i am being seriousl.
israel is too far right on this issue, obviously.
there is no fair body to check them.
if the UN condemned hamas, when they condemned israel the condemnation would hold much more weight
you giuys are all the same way. I admit when israel is wrong but you ignore that, you never admit that hamas is wrong
are you okay when a top leader in hamas several years ago said to kills Jews all over the world for the palestenian cause? the un would not even condemn that
I don’t think we’ve met.
can you expand?
how does israel displacing thousands of israelis from gaza and allowing them to form their own government make peace less acheivable?
the blockade did not happen until hamas took control of the government. when a government goes into power with the purpose of wiping israel off the map, israel is going to defend itself anyone it sees fit.
but i am confused by your statement
how did israel unsettling gaza make peace harder?
if israel withdaws settlements from Judea and Samaria, woudl that make peace harder as well?
This is info I need more of and people will accuse me of being too lazy to do my own research, but damn the situation seems complicated AF
Is it true that Israel controls their electricity as well? Being a country with a mighty military and hearing how they continue to land grab and kick people out of their homes, it’s easy to think that the government of Israel (not necessarily the people) are the bullies here and why Palestinians attempt to defend themselves
Afaik Israel continues to break international laws and commit war crimes (the US government does so as well on a regular basis). Couple that with the fact I don’t even understand Zionism and I have a hard time following all my Jewish friends’ logic when it comes to defending Israeli actions at all costs
the 2000 camp david summit did have a disappointing ending, but it was the closest they ever came to an agreement and im not sure how it made future agreements less possible
unless you mean that both sides became more right wing and less willing to compromise because of public opinion polls of their constiuents
i agree that the average Israeli and average Palestenian do not want a 2 state solution, but that doesnt mean that one cannot be worked out by the governments. East Jerusalem is the biggest sticking point that i dont know how they will get past
But i am hoping for a 2 state solution at some point
i dont think most -people in this thread are
Right, but the ratio of Palestinian deaths over that of Israeli civilians is overwhelming. Also over 30% of deaths caused by Israel have been of children! Surely, you see something wrong with that. No one is saying that 23 Israeli deaths is acceptable
I appreciate your questions on it.
Israel Electric company supplies half the elecrricity to gaza. They do not have to; Gaza has created electricity but they woudl rather use their resources on rockets;
but there is no reason that israel has to supply any eletricity to gaza but they do because if they did not the humanitarian crissi would be even worse than it is
so i dont really understand how israel supplying gaza with elecricity and water voluntarily is a knock on them
Sure. Sharon’s plan had multiple goals, peace wasn’t one of them.
The idea was to perpetuate the notion started by Barak post-2000 that ‘there is no partner’. Meaning, Abbas, who only recently at the time took over after Arafat’s death, is worthless.
Fully aware that a unilateral move like that will lead to a violent fight over control in the area. Which is did. Leading to Hamas taking over and not a single election being held since.
Additional benefits from the plan were suppose to be an agreement from Bush to deny the ‘right of return’ and fortify settlements block in the West Bank.
Now clearly most of the ‘left’ in Israel supported the plan and the right opposed it, but that doesn’t mean much. I would also argue, in a very unpopular stance in ‘my camp’, that the treatment of evacuated settlers was done in a very right-wing inhuman way, even if evacuating settlements is a good thing in general.
lol yes hamas is using all the resources for rockets that’s why things are bad
2 Likes
not all those deaths were caused by israel, 30% of hamas 4000 rockets fell in gaza itself for example, and some of the reported deaths are in the west bank and israel did not fire into the west bank (those are probaboly from Lebanon)
the numbers are unacceptable I agree. Call israel out for it
but again, why is gaza claiming victory in this war? they shot 4000 rockets at israel knowing israel would retaliate and they can gain positive media coverage that gazans died. and that was their entire goal
if you are actually interested, the reason gaza started firing the missles in the first place is because Abas cancelled the Palestenian elections in the West Bank because Hamas probably would have won and tehy knew the palestenians inthe west bank were mad at the PA so they needed a cause to unite them, … so start a war with israel, have palestenians die, gain sympathy and unite the people of gaza and the west bank
it is brillaint if you ignore the lives they directly and indirectly caused death to. but bragging and calling it a victory?
I would argue that nearly everyone in this thread is in favor of 2 state solution. I’m probably one of the few who aren’t. As in, I think a 2 state solution is only the preferred solution because it was the most pragmatic way to ‘solve’ the issue. But if it’s not pragmatic anymore, it seems odd to me that it is viewed as the desired outcome.
1 Like
how can hamas afford rockets but israel have to supply electricity and water to gaza citizens?
its a 2 state solution or the status quo
Israel is not disappearing, and contrary to beliefs in this thread, genocide is not israel’s goal
the current situation is a humanitarian crisis so i would think most would favor a 2 state solution
Never mind I don’t even feel like arguing about your disingenuous framing, I’m out
There is no 2 state solution
2 Likes
thank you for this post honestly. I dont agree with it in full but there is some truth to it, and Israel was much less in favor of full peace in 2000 than they were in 95 before Rabin’s murder. I cant argue that
if im being honest, i think israel did want Gaza to be a sovereign nation, but expected to annex Judea and Samaria in return which is sort of what you are saying with the expanded settlements and the Bush admin so we are more in agreement than i thought
there was in 1948 and there could be at some point, so i dont agree with you.