[IMPORTANT] Hamas launches foot assault against settlements.

Post Reply New Topic

Enough people on both sides want all of the land and are willing to fight indefinitely to make a one or two state solution untenable.

As far as the war itself the IDF is in the Al Shifa hospital. The World Health Organization has lost contact.

Israel will never give up the West Bank, for various reasons, one of which is the military strategic value of the hills and mountains of the West Bank. Also, at this point there are so many West Bank settlers, many of whom have lived there for decades by now, that forcing them to move back to Israel proper would be a significant ethnic cleansing in its own right. (And probably a very violent ethnic cleaning, given that many of the settlers are heavily armed.)

A single, unified Israel-Palestine is the only solution that would NOT require any ethnic cleansing in either direction.

A single, unified Israel-Palestine is also the only solution that can result in a country that both (1) is militarily defensible and (2) would allow ALL its people to have freedom to live, work, and travel "from the river to the sea" (or "from the Sea to the Jordan") -- a freedom which more and more people there increasingly want, at least for their own side if not the other side.

The two-state solution, on the other hand, is like King Solomon offering to cut the baby in half.


For some period of time, there will need to be international peacekeepers to stamp out terrorism in either direction.

A hypothetical unified Israel-Palestine would not be an out-of-the-way place that almost nobody outside the country cares about, like Rwanda was. The eyes of the world would be on Israel-Palestine.

Today in the U.S.A., more and more young people oppose the U.S.A.'s uncritical support for Israel. As the younger generation matures and its political influence grows stronger, the U.S.A.'s position will shift. There will still be severe political consequences for any U.S. politician who allows bad things to happen to Israeli Jews, but, at that point, finally, there will also be severe political consequences for any U.S. politician who allows bad things to continue to happen to Palestinians.

At that point, hopefully, the U.S. government will finally be able to form or join an international alliance demanding a real solution. That's where the pressure will come from, to have an equitable one-state solution in the first place, similar to what eventually happened for South Africa, only more so. Hopefully the pressure will continue long enough for the solution to be implemented, and hopefully it will continue long enough for both sides to actually, finally calm down and accept each other.

Already there are plenty of Palestinians and Palestinian sympathizers who advocate an equitable one-state solution. And, when American progressives chant "... from the river to the sea," that's what most of them are advocating.

The resistance to this idea comes primarily from the Israeli side. But, eventually, Israel will be forced to go along, as political opinion in the U.S.A. shifts.

I think people who are not there can’t really propose a workable solution. We just don’t get it. We can just look at a map and redraw lines and write “peaceful people,” in the middle and call it a perfect solution all we want but none of this airmchair nation building peace keeping stuff is worth Jack s**t when the people involved will not, under any circumstances, accept said solution. They’re just gonna keep doing their fighting things, defence things, terrorist things, resistance things, othering and hating things etc etc forever and a day no matter what anyone else says.. as has been proven by history as far back as anyone feels like looking up.

What, exactly, does anyone here think is going to change about anything that would magically make all of these people live and let live cooperatively together in peace and harmony? Unless we’re talking about dosing every single one of them on both sides with heroic doses of psilocybin, repeatedly until effective, then I reeeeeeaaaallly don’t see any sort of “one for all and all for one!” human unity solution coming.

I'm not part of either community but its quite obvious there is a ethno-nationalist element in their desire for land which makes it impossible for one state. A two state solution is the more stable option once a) Hostages are returned and b) HAMAS is dismantled in Gaza.

Quite obviously Israel will be required to help rebuild Gaza but I suspect they (Israel) will want to build a giant wall (like the one Trump wanted along the Mexican border).

Only after that some type of "detente" can be established and everyone can go back to some type of normality.

Again I don't want to sound like I am biased toward Israel but what is the IDF supposed to do if fuel mean't for hospitals is being diverted to HAMAS and second if HAMAS is using hospitals and even schools to launch rockets at Israel
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-pho ... g-schools/

Then what choice do they have?? The debate about whether Israel is spreading false propaganda is irrelevant since this is intel that the IDF themselves have been collecting and using for their defence strategy and so far (at least) the US does not dispute this intel.
.

Better they’re in the hospital searching room by room than just levelling it from afar.

There are plenty of people here in the U.S.A. who do, at least, have ties to people who are there or who have been there.

The Palestinian solidarity movement, here in the U.S.A., makes a point of listening to the more moderate Palestinians. Jewish Voice for Peace makes a point of listening both to the more moderate Palestinians and to anti-Zionist Jews (especially the more secular ones) in Israel.

(On the other hand, on the other side of things here in the U.S.A., plenty of U.S. Zionist leaders, Christian as well as Jewish, have personal ties to people in Israel too.)

In any case, the hypothetical unified state would need to have a very carefully-constructed constitution, with input from many different people who live there.

Yes, that is 100% within the definition of ethnic cleansing.

Further, those who aren't willing to be exiled will be killed. Threat of deadly violence is the means by which people are displaced and you seem perfectly fine with it.

What’s the alternative viable solution besides putting distance between you and the people launching rockets at you?

Are you fine with continued terrorist attacks and rocket launches on civilians?

I’m way more fine with separating people with physical distance than watching them launch rockets at each other.

Here's the thing, the IDF have no idea who is HAMAS and who is civilian. How do you interrogate 600,000 Palestinians? Again, it's easy to point the finger and blame Israel, but nobody can come up with viable alternatives that make Israeli citizens feel safe.

Pretty sure anyone aiming a weapon at IDF will be treated as hostile.

I know those are the people I’d be shooting if I were searching a building room by room.

The viable solution is going to require Israel to stop being the antagonist, meaning they'll need to dismantle the settlements in Area C as well as stop interfering with the Palestinian attempts to form a viable state.

As long as they continue to expand settlements and actively interfere with Palestinian attempts to form a state they'll be dealing with the consequences of those actions.

They can't honestly use those consequences as an excuse to murder or violently displace those neighbours and it's absolutely revolting to encounter people advocating for Israel to engage in ethnic cleansing. People who advocate for a final solution to the Palestinian question deserve to be recognized as cheerleaders for ethnic cleansing because that's what you openly support.

"You see, you've already lost, as I've drawn you as the soyjak ethnic cleanser, and myself as the Chad."

What's your plan for when people stop being afraid of the labels you try to attach to them?

Uuuuh, antagonist, eh? I think you're confused about which side launched a terrorist attack on the other on October 7th, murdered ~1100 people, including festival goers and babies, raped a bunch of women, and took a couple hundred hostages. I'd count that as a rather hostile act of aggression that antagonized Israel vs. the other way around.

What part of their government launching a terrorist attack on Israel was a part of organizing themselves into a viable state? Hardly seems like people just doing their best to govern themselves and live and let live on the land as reasonable neighbours.

If living right next door to Israel results in terrorist attacks and rockets being launched on their neighbours, then they've kinda forfeited the right to live right next door, haven't they? Why would Israel tolerate this if they can create physical space between them so they can't keep lobbing bombs at civilians? Doesn't make sense to advocate for more of the same instead of a peaceful solution of putting distance between warring peoples.

It's a bit like a couple guys in a fight.. they've got to be separated or they're just going to keep going at it. There's been decades of conflict. What's the worst that could happen by trying to put space between them? Fewer rocket attacks? If nothing changes then nothing changes and they all just keep at this same BS into perpetuity. At least if they're both in their own separate corners they can't keep swinging at each other. Give space a chance - it might just result in peace.

edit: And just so you don't think I'd support the same here at home, if some group of people was lobbing rockets at music festivals and kidnapping and raping people here where I live I'd 100% support big weapons being used to force them back and make them stay away at a distance they could no longer do those things.

Last edited by goldfish21 on 15 Nov 2023, 6:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Are you disputing that the label is applicable, or just pointing out that labelling people based on what they support doesn't do anything to change whether or not they support it?

I'll admit, I don't know how to make someone who feels ethnic cleansing is both acceptable and justified to reconsider because they've likely already decided who they feel is a person and who they feel is deserving of being treated as less than a human.

But, that's no excuse to not call a spade a spade.

Yes, Israel's history since the Nakba has been that of the antagonist. That attack (7/10) didn't occur in a vacuum and it's dishonest to ignore everything prior to it and act like it was unprovoked.

I never claimed that attack was related to attempting to organize an effective state, but this is exactly the level of "reason" I've come to expect from you.

What entitles Israel to keep stealing land and displacing people? That's what they've been doing since 1947 and it shouldn't be condoned. That's the source of the conflict and people who act like they need to do more of it, rather than stop are contributing to the problem.