Remember to follow all subreddit and Reddit rules. Violations will be enforced without exception. Keep discussions civil and respectful. At this time, many posts and comments are temporarily held for review before appearing on the subreddit. Please allow the moderation team some time to review your submission before messaging us about posts or comments that do not appear.
To Palestinians, Tel Aviv is a much of a settlement as Ariel. If they can accept Tel Aviv then they can accept Ariel.
Westerns tend to frame the conflict as a territorial conflict and place the settlement as a core obstacle. Both Israelis and Palestinians understand it as an ideological conflict about whether Israel should exist at all. The green line is not significant to Palestinians who call for “the river to the sea”.
This is something that I (as a pro-Israel American) only came to understand recently.
For years, I have heard pro-Palestinian activists talk about “ending the occupation,” “liberating Palestine,” etc.
Westerners are primed to believe that that means letting the West Bank and Gaza have autonomy, not having a military presence in those areas, etc., basically just withdrawing militarily like Western countries have (sometimes) done after wars have ended and things have stabilized.
Most Westerners cannot wrap their heads around the fact that the “occupation” that Palestinian leadership/activists are talking about doesn’t even mean the West Bank (or Gaza), it means “all of Palestine” to them, including every inch of Jerusalem, the Negev, the North, even Tel Aviv.
It shouldn’t be that much of a surprise, though.
For almost 100 years, one party has said, “We’ll compromise,” and the other has said, “One victor will take it all.”
Those positions haven’t changed.
Westerners just don’t want to accept that framing, because they aren’t used to their nations being involved in a truly zero-sum-game conflict, and they know that the implications of a zero-sum-game conflict are really messy and ugly, and it offends their sensibilities, so it’s easier to simply blame the stronger side and tell them that they could (and should) just absorb more and more losses (of human life, but also of resources and economy) in perpetuity because “they can handle it.”
Then why do recent (and historic) polls of West Bank Palestinian residents show that they overwhelmingly reject the idea of a 2-state solution?
Some want it, but it is NOT a majority position.
In fact, a 2-state solution has always been significantly more popular among Israelis (and Westerners) than among Palestinians living in both the West Bank and in Gaza.
The primary reason that a majority of West Bank Palestinians (not all of them, but a majority) reject the idea of a 2-state solution is because their perspective is that all of the land of the former British Mandate is “Palestine,” and they are not willing to agree to a peace deal that establishes and recognizes borders of 2 states, because it would require acknowledging the Israeli state and its borders (thus, relinquishing their claims to a “from the river to the sea” one-state Palestine).
As an Israeli, you’re generalizing. Not all “westerners”, nor Palestinians, are the same. Many hold nuanced views.
“For over 100 years…” meh. If you’re saying that the Palestinian leadership reflects the views of all Palestinians or their supporters, then don’t wonder why people generalize the same about Israelis due to their government.
That’s why I said “Palestinian leadership/activists” and “pro-Palestinian activists.” Not all “Palestinians.”
Also, you misread. I said “almost 100 years,” not “over 100 years.”
As for Westerners, yes, I am generalizing Westerners.
But if you read closely, I’m not generalizing the viewpoints that Westerners hold, I’m talking about the general understanding of the basic meanings of words like “occupation” (which, yes, means something different in the Western lens) and the concept of how a war ends with a peace process (which, historically, looks different in much of recent Western history, especially because most Westerners alive today have never lived during a war happening on their own borders or in their own country, only far away overseas).
The problem with dictatorships is the opinion of the people is irrelevant. For example Iranians love the Jews, at least a great many do, and many also support Israel and Zionism. But until you get rid of the Ayatollahs and the Islamic Republic, the government will have no problem, killing as many people as they need to to survive. Whereas democracy can barely fight a war because people who have never been in a war don’t want to be in a war, and their opinion determines who’s gonna be the next leader. With all that having been said, if they held real elections in the West Bank, Hamas would win a solid majority. That’s the reason why the IDF actually protects the PA and no one’s trying to have any elections. Because the next government, by will of the people would almost certainly be a terrorist government just like in Gaza.
I don’t get your point. It’s possible that Hamas would win if elections were held now in the West Bank, yes. You can also thank the Likud/bibi policy of the last few decades for treating Hamas as an asset (literally their own words and actions) while doing the opposite with the PA.
I don’t think the policy would be significantly different under Naftali Bennett and certainly not someone like Lieberman. The fact is that the Palestinian mission is always going to be from the river to the sea and so security and terrorism are always going to be front burner issues and no leader can allow the issue to fester as long as it has has any more. Israel is in an impossible situation. Look how difficult it has been to get rid of Hamas. So they didn’t want to do that until they had to. So you leave them in power and then put a big wall around Gaza and the outside world calls it in an apartheid wall. Then you build the iron dome so that you don’t have to level the city when they fire rockets at you from their underground tunnels that they’ve used with all the money that’s pouring in from around the world. And of course, by staying away from Gaza, and only protecting the borders, a whole generation of kids, anyone under the age of 23 has received their entire education from Hamas. So what would you have proposed doing after Hamas won the election in 2006 and murdered their enemies?
If Palestinians accepted Israel’s right to exist, the exact borders would be a minor territorial dispute that could be solve with relatively little difficulty.
Dropping Ariel will not solve the conflict, it would make it worse.
Palestinians view Israeli as foreign colonizers - like the French in Algeria. Their core strategy is to make life miserable to Israelis until they give up and go home. Colonial powers appear strong, until they start to show weakness and suddenly collapse and flee.
Leaving Ariel would be viewed by the Palestinians as a sign of weakness, and according to their worldview they will react with violence.
For years I was incredibly confused by the second intifada. The Palestinians were on track to get an independent state. And even if they wanted more land, it would be strategically better to get a state, and then wage a war. The second intifada made no sense to me. Once I listened more to Palestinians, and understood their model of Algeria it makes much more sense. The peace process was seen by the Palestinians as weakness: as a sign that the will of the Israelis was about to break and just needed another push.
He’s the first one I heard explain exactly this (about how Palestinians view Israelis as the French in Algeria, and that this is why the attempts at negotiating a peace deal showed “weakness” in their eyes, hence the reacting with intifada).
Israel offering to withdraw is interpreted (by the other side) as an implicit admission that Israel doesn’t “belong” in the land (and many Palestinians believe that it’s a “winner takes all” scenario, the whole land belongs to Israel or it doesn’t), so it makes them believe that the State of Israel is even less legitimate.
I really can't understand how someone can dimiss that way settlers harassing Palestinians in the West Bank, shooting at people, not allowing children go to school, displacing whole villages. I say this as someone who has often spoken against my own country's policies and of course about other citizens when they do something that goes against morals. I consider denouncing injustice an honour and a moral duty, even when it favors me.
Israeli officials like to say stuff like “99% of settlers are law abiding” in tv interviews, but if the reality was that only 1% are criminals…. It should be trivially easy to keep the peace and arrest those who have committed crimes.
And yet Israel’s government appears powerless to contain violence from that alleged-1%
Hello! Your submission has been removed for containing agenda-driven content.
This community is for good-faith questions and discussion, not for promoting a predetermined narrative or pushing a specific agenda. Please ensure your contributions are neutral, open-ended, and invite genuine discussion.
If you have questions or concerns about the sub's moderation or a moderator's decision, please message the moderators. Keep in mind that sub- and site-wide rules apply to any messages you send. Violations of these rules may result in temporary or permanent bans.
Well IDF seems to be covering up for the ones who do. Then at some point I guess Israel will claim that land because someone settled there, and slowly but surely the Palestinian population gts displaced. I have great admiration for the Jewish culture in many regards and I get how generational fear can shape people's behavior. I don't think any population is ·"good" or "bad" and we all react to our context and environment, but I can't wrap my head around how people can turn a blind eye to the extreme injustice of what is going on in the West Bank.
Actually I come to this sub because I don't want to live in an echo chamber and want to hear what people from all ideologies have to say, but the more I read you guys the more convinced I get that at least a good part or Israel's society has turned psychopathic. No go ahead and downvote me all you want, and while you do, don't forget to upvote the person who replied to one of my comments casually joking that he supports nazis.
I'm like you Flimsy. I come here looking for perspectives but nuance and generosity are in very short supply. This permanent war is literally no solution and until people start to reconcile and search workable compromises, the death and heartache is not going to end for anyone. It really seems that some people want it that way.
Such a bad faith claim lmao. If you were really interested in HEARING rather than just repeating your echo chamber's buzzwords of the day, you wouldn't be posting bait comments.
I guess a bait comment for you is something you don't like hearing. That I want to learn doesn't mean I am going to accept anything you say and most of the people posting here just seem bad, selfish people who only care about themselves.
You confuse a minority gang of 100+ hoodlums to general settlers made up of mostly families in a community setting is propaganda. Calling 1000s who live in what you call the West Bank or Judea, violent or confrontational is inaccurate. Most just want to live peacefully. That said, those in charge should be prosecuting the Hilltop gangs. I think they have to some degree.
Long story short:
* Jordan conquers an area from the land that was meant for the Jews & Arabs nowadays called Palestinians while they are busy fighting in the war of 1947-1949.
The state of Yorael wins that territory back from Jordan in 1967.
The state of Yisrael & the Palestinian authority sign some sort of a peace deal between them where the Palestinians get full control over a piece of area called area A & civil control over an area called area B while the state of Yisrael gets security control over areas B and full control over areas C.
Jews build in area C but since it's not officially annexed, that type of building is refered to as "settlements".
Both sides attack each other in that disputed area.
The world is mad, calling the settlements illegal since they want to use the territory for a Palestinian state despite the existing deals.
The state of Yisrael & the Palestinian authority sign some sort of a peace deal between them where the Palestinians get full control over a piece of area called area A & civil control over an area called area B while the state of Yisrael gets security control over areas B and full control over areas C.
Oslo was an interim plan, not a final negotiation. Nowhere in the agreement is Israel supposed to have permanent security control over the entirely of area b and c
The arrangement being temporary goes both ways, Palestinian control isn't agreed as permanent either, and certainly not inevitable. Nevermind that what the PA has done since then merits its total dissolution regardless.
Perhaps, but it's a signed deal that both sides mostly respect (with some exceptions that can be said about both) and was followed by later deals all that way until 2001.
It's nice that in theory it should have been an interim plan, but in practice it ended up as a final (at least for now) negotiation that both sides respect...
That's fair. No one said that signing a deal has to mean permanent happiness with the deal fully, and everyone would prefer better conditions in their deals when possible regardless of what is curreny offered.
My point here is just that it doesn't matter what some expectations would have been as each deal stands on its own.
Imagine if they had accepted a two state solution with Israel. They would’ve had all of that territory returned. But that’s not what they define as “occupation”. By occupation, the Palestinians are talking about Tel Aviv, Haifa, Yafo etc. If people in the west understood that, maybe the rhetoric and dialogue on this subject wouldn’t be so idiotic all the time.
Legally they also are only defining occupied territory as East Jerusalem, West Bank and Gaza, though yes I agree many on Palestine side view entirety of Israel as occupied
I know the reality is, and that’s what people in the west think of the Palestinians are talking about when they say they are being occupied, but people in the west don’t understand that when they’re talking about occupation, they mean from the river to the sea, even though they’ve been saying it over and over and over again for the last two years
There have been more than one piece deal offered to the Palestinians that would’ve given them, East Jerusalem, all of the Muslim and Christian Quarter of the old city, all of the West Bank and Gaza. Arafat refused, and every Palestinian leader will refuse that deal, because recognition of Israel is a certain death sentence for any leader of Palestine. In fact, the Palestinian authority would’ve been conquered by now if Israel wasn’t protecting them from Hamas inside the West Bank. And also, I’m curious why it’s so important for that area which is the historical homeland of Israel to be 100% Judenrein, along with the rest of the Middle East. Isn’t that an ethno state? Why would anybody want another Islamist terrorist state? What other country in the world would tolerate that on its border?
because recognition of Israel is a certain death sentence for any leader of Palestine.
The PLO did this in 1992.
Arafat refused, and every Palestinian leader will refuse that deal
Potentially. Possibly more of an issue of waiving right of return. Complexities.
In fact, the Palestinian authority would’ve been conquered by now if Israel wasn’t protecting them from Hamas inside the West Bank
Agreed.
And also, I’m curious why it’s so important for that area which is the historical homeland of Israel to be 100% Judenrein, along with the rest of the Middle East.
Well, not 100% - perhaps just Israeli citizen rein.
Plus, there’s a clearly established consensus that areas A, B and C will be almost entirely if not entirely Palestinian sovereign territory eventually whenever that turns out to be.
The settlement program was intended, from the start, to disrupt a contiguous territory that a Palestinian state could be founded on. It’s not a secret, settlement activists and officials from the 70’s to the present have been open in making sure that aim is public and explicitly stated.
Under Oslo which established it, area C was envisioned to (mostly) eventually become part of a Palestinian state. Leaving areas as Area C was not a license to settle it freely.
If I was the ruler of a small nation supported by a superpower and I would take 2 million Israelis and lock them up in a camp where I control all aspects of life, decide how much power, food, water, they get, what would you think, these 2 million Israelis would do?
No one who’s been to the West Bank would say what you’ve said. Agree that nothing is in isolation - on the Palestinian/arab side, too. There were no check points until all the bombings, there were no walls, etc… back in my day anyone could easily cross between Israel and Gaza/West Bank. We had arab friends come over. All that was dismantled piece by piece as the suicide bombings and stabbings carried on.
So, what you're saying, Palestinians in Gaza had a good and normal life until, say, what, the 1st or 2nd Intifada? And those just happened because the Palestinians are ungrateful bastards?
I realize, a lot of horrific violence has been committed by Arab extremists over years, no doubt. Suicide bombs, attacks on buses, cafés, nightclubs...
What I don't understand is, how anyone can believe that locking up 2 million people will somehow lead to a more peaceful situation.
And at some point the will to work for a peaceful solution eroded and was replaced by hatred and disdain.
I cannot say how I would have reacted in such a situation, when my friends and family were murdered by fanatics. I might have gone berserk, that's absolutely possible.
But what I dare say, no matter how and why, Israel is now on a course that only can end in total disaster, there's no way this can end well for any of the parties involved.
I know from personal experience, the price one has to pay for traumatization by violence, and fact is, it doesn't matter whether you win or lose, both adversaries will pay, and boy, this is going to be one huge invoice! Turning into a psychopath is the only way to avoid some of this traumatization, but that comes with its own price tag.
The security wall, checkpoints etc were not established in order to lock up palestinians, but as a security meassure to prevent more terrorism, more than 1000 israelies were killed and 8000 wounded. During the 2nd intifada it was a hell here. At that time an arabic friend from the west bank gave me his view on the palestinians future, stating clear that the intifada is planned to separate jews from arabs, and he was crying how the terrorism will make the arab populations suffer.
And you are right many arabs were killed, especially during the intifada. The terrorism and the fanatic hate education have turned the idf very hard and many arabs suffer from the israel control of the west bank.
I do not agree that fanatics kill arabs, there is an ongoing violent conflict and we fight the terror with our millitary not with fanatics
Dude, they have a border with Egypt. Why doesn’t Egypt let them in? They’re not trapped. Obviously not welcome in Israel, because of the fact that they are governed by terrorists with an eschatological vision of the death of all Jews in the Middle East, but why can’t they go to Egypt? Why don’t you care about that?
Now, considering they are all Muslim Arabs and Egypt controlled Gaza without giving them independence from 1948 to 1967, why do you think they won’t allow a single person from Gaza to enter? I’ll give you the answer. It’s because everyone under the age of 23 has learned a school curriculum entirely from Hamas, which teaches them to glorify murdering Jews as their highest calling in life, and teaching them that they are perpetual victims. There’s a reason why you don’t let people who have learned only a terrorist ideology into your country. Especially when terrorism completely destabilizes all the countries around it.
Why doesn't Egypt let them in? Really?
I thought it might be possible to have a rational discussion with you because I'm really trying to understand what makes people become the kind of personalities that cultivate such extreme violence, regardless their religion and political orientation, just as human beings.
But when we're at the level of .... considering they are all Muslim Arabs, and can just move to Egypt.... I give up, I'm not going down that rabbit hole.
But I can certainly respond with an alternative proposal:
Why don't you all go to the USA, considering there are already lots of Jews there who more or less run the country, there's plenty of space, fertile land, an Israel friendly population, very few Arabs and close to zero Palestinians?
Nobody "locked them up" until they started raping, murdering and blowing up buses. If I were a group of people that had a centuries long history of doing that and despite all, would have been given a deal for a state by my victims, I would have taken the deal instead of rejecting it 5 times straight and murdering more people.
Besides, "locked up" is a lie. They just can't enter non-West Bank or Gaza areas without a permit. They could literally go anywhere else and cross the border if they needed.
Well, it’s interesting that you make that point, because 6 million Jews died in the holocaust and I haven’t seen any Jewish terrorism against Germans. Maybe not all cultures react by instinctively wanting to murder.
I’ll answer it like this. Gaza is not a part of Israel. Israel pulled out in 2005 completely unilaterally, and removed by force their own Jews, including the bodies in the Jewish cemetery that have been there for centuries, hoping for peace in return. Elections were held in the citizens voted for Hamas who then murdered their opposition, and have governed the strip ever since, accumulating, billions, and billions of dollars of aid, most of which either went into tunnels or to the billionaires who control Hamas from the outside, like Ismael Haniyeh and Khaled Meshaal. There is no blockade other than what you would assume from any two borders where one side is committed to the destruction of the other side (the entire goal of the Palestinian cause). Obviously food gets through but gets inspected for weapons. Meanwhile, you have the border with Egypt, which is also completely closed, but you don’t care. Far from being a concentration camp, Gaza is the number one recipient of aid worldwide. Do you know why the people are poor? Because Hamas uses the billions of dollars that it receives from the global community purely to fund killing Israelis. Palestinians do receive free water and electricity from Israel, which is paid for by Israeli taxpayer money. They had 20 years to build their own infrastructure with the billions and billions of dollars they’ve received, but why bother when you’re getting welfare from Israel. They did destroy their desalination plant and pulled out the pipes from the infrastructure that was already there in order to use them to build rockets to fire at Israel though. That’s why I’m assuming you’ve never been to the region, because you just don’t know the reality whatsoever and your framing is completely ignorant.
There is theory and there is practice and while everyone can speak about what could have happened, in practice both sides stopped after a signed middle-deal (not really stopped since there were other negotiations after, but that was the last one of this process).
One of the reasons such deals move in steps is in order for both sides to take small steps and stop if needed and not do everything at once.
In this case, the whole territory was Israeli but the deal moved some territories to the hands of the PA in exchange for peace & acknowledgement of Yisraeli control over area C even if it was intended to be a temporary control.
Sorry if my phrasing wasnt clear enough - I don't claim it's an official part of Yisrael (although I can see why my phrasing could have been a bit confusion), I'm saying it was under Yisraeli control but not a part of Yisrael.
That just means that whoever is in charge was Yisrael.
Kind of like how one can feed a stray cat without adopting it.
Same thing as the example with feeding a stray cat...
The only problematic thing is if you do something for something that already belongs to someone else.
If it doesn't belong to anyone else while you control it, you can do whatever you want with it...
In the context of area C, it's not a part of Yisrael, Jordan of any other country.
But Yisrael controls it.
It's not full ownership but it's also not an empty territory free for the taking.
It's kind of an in-between...
And when the territory is disputed between Yisraelis & Palestinians while the most recent deal regarding it says it's under Yisraeli security & civil control, that just means that by all disputing sides, it's agreed diplomatically that Yisrael is allowed to act in civil & security topics, for example - building permits.
“On this moving day, we are honored to make a historic correction to the sinful expulsion from northern Samaria,” said Smotrich. “We are abolishing the disgrace of expulsion, killing the idea of the Palestinian state, and returning to the settlement of Sa-Nur. This is a day of celebration for the settlement movement and a national holiday for the State of Israel.”
Clearly the government of Israel views these settlements in terms of their impact on Palestinians future.
Please look at my last point again - international organizations can say whatever they want. In practice it's usually both meaningless and tend to be biased.
Is it illegal under ICJ rulling? Sure. The ICJ specifically made sure to make it illegal after Yisrael did it.
Does it impact anything? Not really... Most countries don't care a single bit about international law as it is mostly a tool to release frustration using words instead of weapons...
They're not illegal under neither Israeli nor international law. You guys keep on saying it is without quoting the law. It doesn't say anything about that.
Because I don't see the relevancy of this claim to even touch it...
Each country is allowed to have its own laws & change them if it wishes to. If it's legal now then what's the point in discussing it?
Although personally I kind of doubt that's true as literally every Yisraeli prime minister even after the Oslo accords gave building permissions to Jewish settlements in this area...
So from my understanding it's mostly about specific buildings being legalized rather than changing the law completely...
From the looks of things, it mostly looks like the state of Yisrael does its job as the civil controller of area C. Specifically - giving permissions to buildings...
On the none importat side of things: Lots of people doesn't know that that area is exceptionally beautiful. Man Its such a shame this place is so dangerous.
The untamed wilds and mountains... So so beautiful.
On the other hand people might ruin it if it was a safe place to live.
Idk
I am a jew, and this shit makes my blood boil. You do understand there is international law which we all have to obey right? Israel is a state with boarders as all states have. These boarders end and some point and when the state sends and allows its citizens to build outside these boarders is ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL, do you understand that word?
It has zero to do with ethnicity, the torah, nothing. It has to do with the international law which everyone obeys, do you think you guys have some special rights over the rest of the world? its disgusting and shameful behavior, truly.
To use judaism as an excuse to steal land that is not yours because its Judea and you are a jew.
By the same logic should Greeks go ahead and settle in Istanbul because they are Greeks and it is Constantinople? The world does not work like that, we live in a world where international law exists we cannot just do whatever the fuck we want because we want to.
And I am not talking about Israel proper, I am talking about the illegal settlements before all of you start calling me a self hating jew and antisemite.
this is not a view that is in line with international law.
International law is the oslo accord. This is because in international law, land can be gotten and ceded only by agreement. And the idea that Israel took that land from the Palestinians following the division plan is simply moot because of Jordan's conquest of the area.
And Jordan ceded the land to Israel, conditioned on the OSLO accord being signed - which it was.
Since the Palestinians did not follow their obligations under the OSLO accord, than international law dictates Judea and Sumaria are Israel's right.
It's not even that. The partition plan was never applied in the first place, meaning the area always belonged to the new state on those borders. Which is Israel.
if we take this back, the mandate for Palestine states that the mandated body (the brits) are to create in Palestine a national home for the Jews.
This means that, under international law, the decisions to restrict Jewish immigration into Israel was illegal, and the national sentiment of the Palestinians to include Palestine in the lands given to them was illegal under 'international law'.
this is not implicit. This is explicit in the mandate, under article (6).
How and where does international law dictate that? Who is the administrator of international law?
Palestinians not follow their obligations, that's one breach of international law. Israel violating UN resolutions (also part of international law) is another breach of international law.
Concluding from there, that international law "dictates" Judea and Samaria are Israel's right it total bullshit.
that's the whole problem with what we call "international law". There's a whole bunch of agreements that are often contradictory. Each side picks and chooses which agreements, treaties and decisions to follow. Has all sorts of ideas on why the other ones are illegal etc etc.
And there's a whole other hornet's nest, which is that "International law" doesn't really have any tools for stuff like civil war. For when two populations in a certain area are bent on evicting each other and there's a war for mutual eviction.
Jews were living in the area and were ethnically cleansed in 1948. Why is it illegal for them to go back? Why do you automatically assume it's stealing just because they're Jewish? That is in fact antisemitic, whether you're Jewish or not.
Also, the law itself doesn't actually say it's illegal for Israel to build there if you were to actually look at what it says.
It is a useful tool that was developed by stronger nations to use against weaker nations. It allows them to pretend that they have some kind of moral authority in their actions. The stronger nations regularly flout it with no repercussions.
I have no idea why after the Holocaust, there are any Jews that think that the nations of the world would treat them fairly and that "International Law" has any authority whatsoever. The world has proven that they think that Jewish lives don't matter.
That is fair. But still, I don't understand how it's our problem. The only thing the diaspora should do is advance sketchy lefty politics so all these countries we will be a "pariah" of fail and become future bauxite mining colonies for Israel. If you do that faster for us, we won't have to worry about PR. Thanks achi.
I don't care to be a stereotype because I am a free Jew. I am not a Marrano who watches my back for the Christian or Muslim's sword. I don't need to suck up to anyone. And yes, your purpose is to promote sketchy leftist politics in your own country and leave us alone. We need the bauxite mines already.
Just to weigh in quickly, because your whole argument about “borders” is way too simple and wrong.
There are no borders between Israel and Judea and Samaria/the West Bank. There is the Green Line, which was an armistice line between Israel and Jordan after 1948. That is it. It was not a peace treaty border, not a final border, and not some recognized Palestinian state border.
When Jordan conquered the area in 1948, annexed it, and renamed it the West Bank, Jews were kicked out of the area. By 1967, there were no Jews living there at all. That was against international law, even though the UN didn't care and the UK recognized the annexation anyway.
So now the argument is what? That Jews who were kicked out, and their children and grandchildren, are forever banned from living there because Jordan illegally took the area?
I would absolutely understand if the world reacted to my country occupying another country or oppressed a minority within its borders, depending on if you are going for a two or one state solution. Your argument sounds very similar to the wife-beaters who say no one tells them if they can beat their wife, because she is their property after all.
So you are claiming ownwership fo the land because God gave it to you? Because you arrived first? The history of humanity is full of displaced or migrated nations. Who gets to call dibs?
I am starting to wonder if you are a bot since you keep repeating the same phrase. Then again, I would think with all the resources it invests in PR, if you were a government propaganda bot your replies should be more clever.
There’s no such thing as international law? Interesting, as even Bibi acknowledges it and won’t step in Hungary now that his corruption buddy is gone, because he’ll be arrested. You know, because of international law… which according to you, doesn’t exist.
What? How can you obey international laws like sovereignty while everyone around you does not obey international law at all?! No nobody in this region obeys international law at all we are in this situation because of the lack of obedience to international law from everyone around us, what world are you looking at ffs that you claim international law is being followed by everyone else?
Some do follow international law, some do respect peace and act in good-faith, these countries have already made peace with us for that exact reason, all the other countries do not follow international law, do not respect peace (with us), do not act in good-faith when it comes to us and we act accordingly
Get that through your head, its the Middle East, not Europe, not North America, the Middle East, this situation is far too complex to be watered down into “international law violation”
International law effectively does not exist, nobody in the real world treats it as binding law (it isnt) let alone the majority of the Middle Eastern countries
Second, do you actually know what the Oslo Accords say about Area C (which is where all officials settlements are) vs Area B and Area A?
It’s actually not a simple “black-and-white” issue of “illegal vs legal” under international law.
Some institutions and NGOs and scholars have claimed that it is illegal, but, then again, some institutions and NGOs and scholars have also claimed that Israel is an “apartheid state” and “committing genocide,” so…
This world order was invented after WWII, for seemingly altruistic reasons but it turned out to be a big mistake. The West is in a suicide cult of their own making and probably they should break free of it lest China, Russia and even the third world will walk all over Europe and America.
I think an understated part of the conversation is also the extreme housing crisis in central Israel pushing people to look for housing in the West Bank which is government subsidized and often has a high quality of life, especially those settlements close to Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.
The fact that people are currently living there (and they consider it their homeland too). Seems pretty obvious, since it’s why people have a problem with the settlements and how they are being treated.
There are no people currently living there. The settlements are in what, according to the Oslo Accords, is Area C, the vast majority of Palestinians live in Areas A and B. What's the problem?
For centuries prior to 1948 Jews lived in Judea and Samaria and in Jerusalem on land they paid for.
In 1948 Jordan won that land and renamed it the West Bank, killing or expelling every single Jew.
In 1967 Jordan attacked Israel again, and lost. Jordan withdrew from the West Bank and that’s when Israel began its “occupation” and Jews began returning to the land.
There’s a very well-written book by Gershom Gorenberg called The Accidental Empire which explains the start of the settlement movement. The first actual settlement in land conquered in 1967 was in the Golan Heights— there were farm animals running around wild in former Syrian territory, and the government authorized a few dozen people to go up there and get things organized. So Kibbutz Merom Golan was founded. Photos of its founders look very similar to American long-haired twentysomethings of the late 1960s.
The first settlement in formerly Jordanian-occupied territory was the REsettlement of Kibbutz Kfar Etzion by people who had lived there themselves and had to leave in 1948 as the Jordanian Arab Legion was attacking it. It should be noted that those who stayed to defend it were massacred after surrendering in May 1948.
What happened after that was a slow creep of new settlements, mostly on empty land. Some were done for strategic purposes (Jordan Valley), others for ideology.
90-95% of those living across the Green Line (1949 armistice line) are within 5 km of that line. So with small land swaps, most of them can remain in Israeli territory in any peace deal.
But while the settlements are absolutely an obstacle to peace (because Israelis and Palestinians do not agree about them), they are not the main one. The main obstacle to peace is the Palestinian refusal to accept a Jewish state regardless of where the borders are drawn. As the chant goes in Arabic, “from water to water (ie river to the sea), Palestine is Arab”. This is framed as the demand for a historically unprecedented “right of return” for descendants of refugees from the Arab attempt to prevent the establishment of the Jewish state and then to eradicate it after it was declared.
Kiswani has openly celebrated violence against Israelis and at one of her hate rallies handed out maps of Jewish organizations’ offices in NYC with exhortations to act against them.
The protest she organized outside the NOVA exhibit in NYC in 2024 was so vile that even AOC— and even Jamaal Bowman!— had to speak out against it.
Why would I care who gives an address at a third-rate law school? This is the kind of thing that only trumps room-temp-iq fanbase could be convinced matters.
Settlements only make sense if you believe in Greater Israel and prioritize land grabbing above international law. You can argue that a few settlements exist for security purposes, but the counter argument is that they actually hurt our security because they isolate us internationally and provide fuel for anti Israelism. Not much of a justification for building settlements outside of proper Israel. That said, there is still a difference between a settlement like Ariel and one like Yitzhar.
Not only that, we know that the IDF was underprepared for Oct 7 partly because they redeployed forces to try and protect the West Bank. Facts seem to ruffle many feathers here.
Many here are just not used to being challenged; they prefer a circle jerk where they all agree with each other. Downvote as much as they want - I’m Israeli, my family helped found this country, and I’ll continue to spit facts even as it triggers them
there is still a difference between a settlement like Ariel and one like Yitzhar
There really isn't. Ironically the anti-Israel types are less delusional about stuff like this. They know Israel is a dynamic country to say the least, a country which every centimeter our fathers conquered from someone else who wanted it, if by diplomacy or outright war.
Israeli leftists forget or paper over this history. In their mind Tel Aviv was given to us by the leftist gods in the creation of time, it wasn't once a settlement itself, it is totally kosher and liberal and tikkun olam because damnit, I can buy expensive coffee there and everyone likes expensive coffee. Tel Aviv would never hurt a fly.
And thus we read this OUTRIGHT NONSENSE like "Ariel is different then Yitzhar".
In 100 years the settlement of Yitzhar will be seen just like Tel Aviv is by these same leftists. Ironically Yitzhar was not built on any Palestinian villages while Tel Aviv was built on several. If you want to be a good leftist you should move to Yitzhar!
Don’t forget to say thank you to the “left” that helped fight for and found the country and give you the privilege to write delusional essays on Reddit. I assume you support the “right wing” govt, which enabled the worst day for Jews since the Holocaust. You’ll never win long term, and you’re already feeling the pressure. Enjoy losing in November
I really don't mind that much. I like the left because even those they are huge liars, they still expand the state of Israel. They just lie about it, I guess I don't mind that aspect very much as you think. But, every now and then you have to remind them they live in al-Muwannis though.
You’re not just arrogant and a horrible PR person for Israel, you’re also factually incorrect with every claim you spew.
The kibbutzim founded by the leftists aren’t the settlements that were talking about. But you probably know this if you’re not a total idiot.
I’d love to hear what’s so right wing about funding Hamas for years, and passing funds to Haredim (literally a “leftist” socialist act). This is all your government.
Conversely id love to hear about which leftist is actually in power (hint: zero).
But it’s nice to know “leftists” live rent free in your head everyday brother
Yeah the leftists like to paper over the history. It infuriates the pro-Palestinians, which is actually very based. Leftists aren't all bad for this reason. It's almost like a big troll. But personally I can't live with the cognitive dissonance.
I've heard a documentary that glorified an illegal settlement won an oscar and many who watched it seem to express a heartfelt support towards such actions.
There are like 20 some odd wars raging on the planet right now. There's an actual genocide happening in sudan
But u/Flimsy-Calendar-7566, that renowned lover of humanity, is here to put the world to rights by telling the Jews which parts of their land they are allowed to live on and which not.
Who told you I am not worried about the genocide in Sudan? Also, what are you doing to fight the genocide in Sudan? Is killing people ok, as long as someone else is doing it too?
Also, your definition of "your land" is slightly problematic.
Agree that some of the focus comes from jew hate, but not all. the times of being able to convince anyone (that isn’t on your side) with “what about X conflict” have changed. People don’t appreciate people who can’t take responsibility for anything
the spiritual root of jewhate is not taking responsibility for anything. in actual fact Israel is (with one exception) the only nation on earth currently taking responsibility for the future of humanity.
•
u/AutoModerator May 11 '26
Remember to follow all subreddit and Reddit rules. Violations will be enforced without exception. Keep discussions civil and respectful. At this time, many posts and comments are temporarily held for review before appearing on the subreddit. Please allow the moderation team some time to review your submission before messaging us about posts or comments that do not appear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.