Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less

[Super Hans]

None of these actions had anything to do with Hamas though. They made a conscious decision to start firing rockets. Once you do that in a construct in which you are severely outgunned, you then don't have the luxury of saying "we're just doing it to make our point, we would like to have a ceasefire now". You now have to endure a massive retaliation. So in the end, it was obviously not worth it since countless Palestinians needlessly died.

Should a rape victim try to scratch her attacker? I mean she's "severely outgunned" and just asking for a "massive retaliation" isn't she?

 

[Gehrman]

Should a rape victim try to scratch her attacker? I mean she's "severely outgunned" and just asking for a "massive retaliation" isn't she?

I think rather it's a wise move to ask, what do I think is going to happen if I start firing rockets into Israel? Based on logic and previous experience. And if what happens doesn't play out like the way you want to what are you going to do about your next move?

 

[Raoul]

Should a rape victim try to scratch her attacker? I mean she's "severely outgunned" and just asking for a "massive retaliation" isn't she?

That's not what this is though. Its largely a land dispute among competing messianic fanatics. Historically, when one side has all the power and the other virtually none - here's nothing the weaker side can do other than acquiesce, in the hope that they are afforded the ability to negotiate a stable outcome. This is why the rise of Hamas is the worst thing that could've possibly happened to Palestinians - because it simply securitizes the Israeli side to continue blockades, settlements, and other restrictive measures.

 

[Super Hans]

That's not what this is though. Its largely a land dispute among competing messianic fanatics. Historically, when one side has all the power and the other virtually none - here's nothing the weaker side can do other than acquiesce, in the hope that they are afforded the ability to negotiate a stable outcome. This is why the rise of Hamas is the worst thing that could've possibly happened to Palestinians - because it simply securitizes the Israeli side to continue blockades, settlements, and other restrictive measures.

That's not what it is at all. It is the gradual erasure of one group of people off the map. The infinitely more powerful, oppressive party is doing whatever it wants and the weaker party resorts to desperate acts. I understand why you don't fancy taking on the analogy though.

 

[UweBein]

Why did you ignore my first question?

Cause - how would I know that? I can not judge the quality of it; but quantitatively it does not make any sense.
Kind regards
Oliver

 

[The Corinthian]

That's not what this is though. Its largely a land dispute among competing messianic fanatics. Historically, when one side has all the power and the other virtually none - here's nothing the weaker side can do other than acquiesce, in the hope that they are afforded the ability to negotiate a stable outcome. This is why the rise of Hamas is the worst thing that could've possibly happened to Palestinians - because it simply securitizes the Israeli side to continue blockades, settlements, and other restrictive measures.

This was happening before Hamas even existed.

 

[The Corinthian]

Cause - how would I know that? I can not judge the quality of it; but quantitatively it does not make any sense.
Kind regards
Oliver

Then why bring it up? Why does it not make sense quantitatively?

Edit: Unless you mean quantitatively there should be the same for the other countries you mentioned (which there are). And also, when discussing Israel, why does it matter what UN does wrt to other nations?

 

[UweBein]

Then why bring it up? Why does it not make sense quantitatively?

Because there were more resolutions against Israel than against the rest of the world.
Do you think that it makes sense? With all the crisis that we have at the same time, that in the year 2020 Israel was the worst perpetrator out there.

 

[The Corinthian]

Because there were more resolutions against Israel than against the rest of the world.
Do you think that it makes sense? With all the crisis that we have at the same time, that in the year 2020 Israel was the worst perpetrator out there.

(See my edit), but on a larger point - it's irrelevant. Why would other countries factor into the UN and its resolutions against Israel?

Also there's 21 resolutions against North Korea, 21 against Syria etc.

 

[Raoul]

That's not what it is at all. It is the gradual erasure of one group of people off the map. The infinitely more powerful, oppressive party is doing whatever it wants and the weaker party resorts to desperate acts. I understand why you don't fancy taking on the analogy though.

Palestinians reside on a larger map than just Israel. Jordan appears to be 70% ethnically Palestinian and yet King Abdullah banned Hamas from operating there in 1999. It appears he was correct in assessing that they would be nothing but trouble and would merely use their existence in Jordan to do what they've been doing in Gaza for 15 years - using the land as a staging point for operations inside Israel.

 

[Gehrman]

This was happening before Hamas even existed.

Isn't a lot of that down to a security threat? The superior military power will always prioritize the safety of its citizens. If there wasn't a geniune threat of attacks, the need to massive security checkpoints and measures would be less.

 

[Super Hans]

Palestinians reside on a larger map than just Israel. Jordan appears to be 70% ethnically Palestinian and yet King Abdullah banned Hamas from operating there in 1999. It appears he was correct in assessing that they would be nothing but trouble and would merely use their existence in Jordan to do what they've been doing in Gaza for 15 years - using the land as a staging point for operations inside Israel.

Not sure what point you are making here other than to point out a group of Palestinians that were wiped off the map by Israel.

 

[The Corinthian]

Isn't a lot of that down to a security threat? The superior military power will always prioritize the safety of its citizens. If there wasn't a geniune threat of attacks, the need to massive security checkpoints and measures would be less.

If the Palestinians weren't dehumanised and subjugated from the off, why would they be angry?

Let's flip it - if a governmental body oppresses, dehumanises and strips away all of their human and civil rights, then is a security threat warranted? If the former doesn't occur, is a security threat still warranted?

 

[Raoul]

Not sure what point you are making here other than to point out a group of Palestinians that were wiped off the map by Israel.

The point is that Palestinians weren't "wiped off the map" because they actually exist in substantial numbers in a neighboring country.

 

[Super Hans]

Isn't a lot of that down to a security threat? The superior military power will always prioritize the safety of its citizens. If there wasn't a geniune threat of attacks, the need to massive security checkpoints and measures would be less.

Can you imagine one group of people carrying out a gradual ethnic cleansing of another group of people and there not appearing a resulting “security threat”? Serious question.

 

[Raoul]

Isn't a lot of that down to a security threat? The superior military power will always prioritize the safety of its citizens. If there wasn't a geniune threat of attacks, the need to massive security checkpoints and measures would be less.

Spot on. The weaker side (by way of Hamas) has caused the stronger side to securitize, and in the process, further inconvenienced the weaker side.

 

[Super Hans]

The point is that Palestinians weren't "wiped off the map" because they actually exist in very large numbers in a neighboring country.

Pardon me, but what you just said was pure gibberish. That’s like saying if Israel was “wiped off the map”, then it wouldn’t really be because Jewish Israelis fled into a neighbouring country.

 

[Gehrman]

If the Palestinians weren't dehumanised and subjugated from the off, why would they be angry?

Let's flip it - if a governmental body oppresses, dehumanises and strips away all of their human and civil rights, then is a security threat warranted? If the former doesn't occur, is a security threat still warranted?

Perhaps, but all of this has been intermingled with war. I'd like to believe that if Israel lifted all restrictions that there wouldn't be increased attacks or terror attacks or whatever we want to call it. But if that isnt the case what happens?

 

[UweBein]

(See my edit), but on a larger point - it's irrelevant. Why would other countries factor into the UN and its resolutions against Israel?

Also there's 21 resolutions against North Korea, 21 against Syria etc.

Not according to the link I posted.

 

[Raoul]

Pardon me, but what you just said was pure gibberish. That’s like saying if Israel was “wiped off the map”, then it wouldn’t really be because Jewish Israelis fled into a neighbouring country.

Except there is no Palestinian state, which makes your analogy somewhat limited.

 

[The Corinthian]

Not according to the link I posted.

Which link?

 

[Super Hans]

Except there is no Palestinian state, which makes your analogy somewhat limited.

State? Why does it have to be a “state”? I can show you ancient maps with Palestine where Israel is. Well guess, what? Palestine has been wiped off of it.

 

[UweBein]

Can you imagine one group of people carrying out a gradual ethnic cleansing of another group of people and there not appearing a resulting “security threat”? Serious question.

Yep, happens in the aftermath of many wars. Just look at post WWII in Europe.
Greeks/Turkey, Germans/Poland, German/Czech Republic, Italians/Yugoslavia, Bulgaria/Romania...

 

[Super Hans]

Yep, happens in the aftermath of many wars. Just look at post WWII in Europe.
Greeks/Turkey, Germans/Poland, German/Czech Republic, Italians/Yugoslavia, Bulgaria/Romania...

Really? So these examples were all gradual (let’s say over the course of at least 10 years) AND there was no armed resistance by the cleansed population?

 

[UweBein]

Really? So these examples were all gradual (let’s say over the course of at least 10 years) AND there was no armed resistance by the cleansed population?

Not gradual, rather instant (the choice was: leave or die or assimilate), no armed resistance ( I mean in Poland/Czech republic was the f*** red army - what could they have done?).

 

[neverdie]

Except there is no Palestinian state, which makes your analogy somewhat limited.

Palestine is recognised by 138 nations worldwide. But if there isn't a Palestinian state then there is only Israeli apartheid.

Isn't a lot of that down to a security threat? The superior military power will always prioritize the safety of its citizens. If there wasn't a geniune threat of attacks, the need to massive security checkpoints and measures would be less.

Why not cease the occupation of the WB where Hamas are a non-entity? It has nothing to do with security except the security of illegal settlers (of an illegal occupying force which is not a part of Israel nor recognised as such by the international community).

 

[Gehrman]

Palestine is recognised by 138 nations worldwide. But if there isn't a Palestinian state then there is only Israeli apartheid.

Why not cease the occupation of the WB where Hamas are a non-entity? It has nothing to do with security except the security of illegal settlers (of an illegal occupying force which is not a part of Israel nor recognised as such by the international community).

First of all its not just Hamas which present or have presented a security a threat. A 10 min reading of history would have made you aware of that. Secondly Hamas stands to win the elections in the west bank by Abbas and were called off for that reason which is cited as one causes for the recent unrest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_political_violence

 

[neverdie]

First of all its not just Hamas which present or have presented a security a threat. A 10 min reading of history would have made aware of that. Secondly Hamas stands to win the elections in the west bank and were called off for that reason which is cited as one causes for the recent unrest.

I'm aware of the other groups. I'm citing Hamas as the boogeyman Israel has made it. It exercises its paramilitary control within Gaza and almost exclusively at that.

Why were settlements constructed post-67 before the creation of Hamas? Has Israel been right all along to colonise land it doesn't own because it has been at risk from people who do own it? That would seem to be your logic.

 

[Gehrman]

I'm aware of the other groups. I'm citing Hamas as the boogeyman Israel has made it. It exercises its paramilitary control within Gaza and almost exclusively at that.

Why were settlements constructed post-67 before the creation of Hamas? Has Israel been right all along to colonise land it doesn't own because it has been at risk from people who do own it? That would seem to be your logic.

No I never made that point. It's more what is the calculation of what will happen if Israel does X Y and Z.

 

[neverdie]

If there wasn't a geniune threat of attacks, the need to massive security checkpoints and measures would be less.

No I never made that point.

You did. Where do you think the threat of attack comes from? It comes from settler-occupied territory within the OPT (and Gaza as an aside). The Israeli state military and police impose the apartheid conditions they do in order to secure settlements built on occupied land. The security risk, or genuine threat of attacks, only exists within land Israel has annexed continuously for fifty plus years.

The logic is backward. If there weren't security checkpoints and separation walls, which exist only because of Israeli occupation within the WB, then there would be no threat of attacks in those areas.

You're not talking about a group or groups which threaten Tel Aviv from within Tel Aviv but group which threaten settlers within settler-colonised territory. Settlers stealing land illegally is the problem. All else is added on top of it. Security risks and whatever else you want to talk about are a result of illegal occupation.

 

[Raoul]

Palestine is recognised by 138 nations worldwide. But if there isn't a Palestinian state then there is only Israeli apartheid.

Or more succinctly, it would mean there is a yet unresolved land conflict taking place in and around Israel. Under the present terms, a hypothetical Palestinian state wouldn't meet any fundamental Weberian definition of statehood because it would lack both geographic territoriality and sovereignty. The sovereignty bit could be resolved if Hamas and Fatah joined together for the greater good of their people. The geographic territoriality bit won't be addressed until Israel and the Palestinian factions come together to negotiate actual borders, which given recent events, won't be happening anytime soon.

Why not cease the occupation of the WB where Hamas are a non-entity? It has nothing to do with security except the security of illegal settlers (of an illegal occupying force which is not a part of Israel nor recognised as such by the international community).

Probably because the Israelis are now sufficiently securitized after having dealt with Hamas for 15 years after having removed settlers from Gaza, to where they don't feel any compunction to pull back on settlements in the West Bank.

 

[neverdie]

Or more succinctly, it would mean there is a yet unresolved land conflict taking place in and around Israel. Under the present terms, a hypothetical Palestinian state wouldn't meet any fundamental Weberian definition of statehood because it would lack both geographic territoriality and sovereignty. The sovereignty bit could be resolved if Hamas and Fatah joined together for the greater good of their people. The geographic territoriality bit won't be addressed until Israel and the Palestinian factions come together to negotiate actual borders, which given recent events, won't be happening anytime soon.

But would we have called the situation in South Africa "an unresolved land conflict"? I don't think it works. It's Orwellian in its shielding effect.

Probably because the Israelis are now sufficiently securitized after having dealt with Hamas for 15 years after having removed settlers from Gaza, to where they don't feel any compunction to pull back on settlements in the West Bank.

Right, strategically you can see how it makes sense if your goal is to colonise the entire area, which is what Israel have been doing for a long time, but in terms of morality rather than game-theory, of whether Israel has a moral right to take and continue to hold Palestinian land, the point is that Israel's expansion within the region has nothing to do with security and everything to do with taking more and more land. In those purely strategical terms, I see your point and it makes sense but Israel then concedes the larger point which is that they are an apartheid state.

 

[Raoul]

But would we have called the situation in South Africa "an unresolved land conflict"? I don't think it works. It's Orwellian in its shielding effect.

That's precisely what it is in Israel. An unresolved conflict over land between two parties tied to different religions.

Right, strategically you can see how it makes sense if your goal is to colonise the entire area, which is what Israel have been doing for a long time, but in terms of morality rather than game-theory, of whether Israel has a moral right to take and continue to hold Palestinian land, the point is that Israel's expansion within the region has nothing to do with security and everything to do with taking more and more land. In those purely strategical terms, I see your point and it makes sense but Israel then concedes the larger point which is that they are an apartheid state.

The goal may not be to colonize the entire area, but rather not be averse to taking more land as a bargaining chip to compel the other side to negotiate. At a minimum, the Israelis have learned that reducing settlements only results in a strengthening of paramilitary groups opposed to them, which suggests they won't be doing that again without some serious concessions from the other side.

 

[Super Hans]

Not gradual, rather instant (the choice was: leave or die or assimilate), no armed resistance ( I mean in Poland/Czech republic was the f*** red army - what could they have done?).

I see. Not gradual. Does that mean you are revising your answer in post #6183 above to: “No, I can’t imagine a similar situation that does not produce a security threat”?

 

[neverdie]

That's precisely what it is in Israel. An unresolved conflict over land between two parties tied to different religions.



The goal may not be to colonize the entire area, but rather not be averse to taking more land as a bargaining chip to compel the other side to negotiate. At a minimum, the Israelis have learned that reducing settlements only results in a strengthening of paramilitary groups opposed to them, which suggests they won't be doing that again without some serious concessions from the other side.

The parallels with South Africa are too numerous to write off. We can't call one "apartheid" and the other a "land conflict" unless we recognise that each really means the other.

During our careers in the foreign service, we both served as Israel’s ambassador to South Africa. In this position, we learned firsthand about the reality of apartheid and the horrors it inflicted. But more than that — the experience and understanding we gained in South Africa helped us to understand the reality at home.

For over half a century, Israel has ruled over the occupied Palestinian territories with a two-tiered legal system, in which, within the same tract of land in the West Bank, Israeli settlers live under Israeli civil law while Palestinians live under military law. The system is one of inherent inequality. In this context, Israel has worked to change both the geography and the demography of the West Bank through the construction of settlements, which are illegal under international law. Israel has advanced projects to connect these settlements to Israel proper through intensive investment in infrastructure development, and a vast network of highways and water and electricity infrastructure have turned the settlement enterprise into a comfortable version of suburbia. This has happened alongside the expropriation and takeover of massive amounts of Palestinian land, including Palestinian home evictions and demolitions. That is, settlements are built and expanded at the expense of Palestinian communities, which are forced onto smaller and smaller tracts of land.

This reality reminds us of a story that former ambassador Avi Primor described in his autobiography about a trip that he took with then-minister of defense Ariel Sharon to South Africa in the early 1980s. During the visit, Sharon expressed great interest in South Africa’s Bantustan project. Even a cursory look at the map of the West Bank leaves little doubt regarding where Sharon received his inspiration. The West Bank today consists of 165 “enclaves” — that is, Palestinian communities encircled by territory taken over by the settlement enterprise. In 2005, with the removal of settlements from Gaza and the beginning of the siege, Gaza became simply another enclave — a bloc of territory without autonomy, surrounded largely by Israel and thus effectively controlled by Israel as well.

The bantustans of South Africa under the apartheid regime and the map of the occupied Palestinian territories today are predicated on the same idea of concentrating the “undesirable” population in as small an area as possible, in a series of non-contiguous enclaves. By gradually driving these populations from their land and concentrating them into dense and fractured pockets, both South Africa then and Israel today worked to thwart political autonomy and true democracy.


This week, we mark the fifty-fifth year since the occupation of the West Bank began. It is clearer than ever that the occupation is not temporary, and there is not the political will in the Israeli government to bring about its end. Human Rights Watch recently concluded that Israel has crossed a threshold and its actions in the occupied territories now meet the legal definition of the crime of apartheid under international law. Israel is the sole sovereign power that operates in this land, and it systematically discriminates on the basis of nationality and ethnicity. Such a reality is, as we saw ourselves, apartheid. It is time for the world to recognise that what we saw in South Africa decades ago is happening in the occupied Palestinian territories too. And just as the world joined the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, it is time for the world to take decisive diplomatic action in our case as well and wo

I don't see how anyone can substantively disagree with the above, written by two former Israeli ambassadors to Apartheid South Africa. Liel was also the director general of Israeli Foreign Affairs.

Israeli officials have long understood what they're doing, so the idea that it's really a security issue that compels them to do something they otherwise wouldn't simply makes no sense..

 

[Raoul]

The parallels with South Africa are too numerous to write off. We can't call one "apartheid" and the other a "land conflict" unless we recognise that each really means the other.



I don't see how anyone can substantively disagree with the above, written by two former Israeli ambassadors to Apartheid South Africa. Liel was also the director general of Israeli Foreign Affairs.

Israeli officials have long understood what they're doing, so the idea that it's really a security issue that compels them to do something they otherwise wouldn't simply makes no sense..

A dispute over land would be the appropriate term to use in negotiations, because that's exactly what's at the fundamental heart of the conflict. Terms like terrorist, apartheid, and similar words play well among extremist factions on both sides seeking to create moral leverage that their side is the correct one, but are generally not helpful (and frankly pointless) among people seeking to come to a mutual agreement.

 

[UweBein]

Really? So these examples were all gradual (let’s say over the course of at least 10 years) AND there was no armed resistance by the cleansed population?

These were examples... from the top of my head. I understand now that gradual was very important to you.
In that case you might find conflicts with indigineous peolple in South America, Greece post Ottoman era, Sudan in our time...

 

[neverdie]

A dispute over land would be the appropriate term to use in negotiations, because that's exactly what's at the fundamental heart of the conflict. Terms like terrorist, apartheid, and similar words play well among extremist factions on both sides seeking to create moral leverage that their side is the correct one, but are generally not helpful (and frankly pointless) among people seeking to come to a mutual agreement.

I disagree becuase of one consideration. The world and Israel itself must recognise exactly what is being carried out in the name of Israel before any real change will be made. It won't come internally from Israel so will require outside pressure. This is again the same circumstance which brought South Africa to the negotiating table. The term "apartheid" isn't just a catchphrase for extremist factions, it's a politically scientific term which fits empirically within the Israeli context.

Do you really think Israel is trying to reach a mutual agreement with the Palestinians? I really question that. The fact of apartheid runs contrary to it, as well. Again, this is a view increasingly held within Israel by very moderate Israelis (career dipolomats!). It isn't hyperbole but a simple statement of fact. Israel is an apartheid state and the world must come to terms with it as such before any resolution (one state, two states, or three states) can be reached, given the need for brokers.

 

[Raoul]

I disagree becuase of one consideration. The world and Israel itself must recognise exactly what is being carried out in the name of Israel before any real change will be made. It won't come internally from Israel so will require outside pressure. This is again the same circumstance which brought South Africa to the negotiating table. The term "apartheid" isn't just a catchphrase for extremist factions, it's a politically scientific term which fits empirically within the Israeli context.

Do you really think Israel is trying to reach a mutual agreement with the Palestinians? I really question that. The fact of apartheid runs contrary to it, as well. Again, this is a view increasingly held within Israel by very moderate Israelis (career dipolomats!). It isn't hyperbole but a simple statement of fact. Israel is an apartheid state and the world must come to terms with it as such before any resolution (one state, two states, or three states) can be reached, given the need for brokers.

I don’t think there is any precedent for the unique nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is why attempting to recruit terms like apartheid will only resonate with people who are already in agreement with one another (just as Hamas being “terrorists” only appeals to likeminded pro-Israel types). At the end of the day both sides are going to have use mature, pragmatic language when seeking to negotiate favorable outcomes with one another.

 

[africanspur]

These were examples... from the top of my head. I understand now that gradual was very important to you.
In that case you might find conflicts with indigineous peolple in South America, Greece post Ottoman era, Sudan in our time...

I'm getting progressively more confused by your point here.

Your point seems to have be that it is possible to ethnically cleanse a population without a violence response from the group being cleansed. Or am I misunderstanding?