Security without justice

@kevcvs57 said
No I didn’t misread your post vifify I genuinely disagree with it. I don’t think the Israelis will stop expanding into Palestinian land in the West Bank no matter how many cheeks the Palestinians turn.
The Israelis have the power here and it’s up to them, the general populace of Israel need to physically and politically stop the settlement project and actively seek out the Palestinians who want peace and support them instead of Hamas and the like

I agree that Israel will continue expanding due to the most hard-right government Israel has had in decades, if not ever.

However, consider this:

https://lawandsocietymagazine.com/how-palestine-rejected-offer-to-have-its-own-state-5-times-in-the-past/

How Palestine rejected offer to have its own state 5 times in the past

In 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak met at Camp David, with Palestinian Liberation Organization Chairman Nasser Arafat, to conclude a new two-state plan. Barak offered Arafat a Palestinian state in all of Gaza, and 94% of the West Bank, with East Jerusalem as its capital. But the Palestinian leader rejected the offer

A mere 7 years before Hamas took power, there could've been peace had Arafat simply accepted a deal that would've given him 94 percent of the West Bank with East Jerusalem as its official capital. These Mid-East debates could've been a thing of the past but Palestinian leaders rejected it.

This is why even though I'm expected to hate Israel as a lib, there just too many things that don't sit right with me regarding these discussions.

@vivify said
I agree that Israel will continue expanding due to the most hard-right government Israel has had in decades, if not ever.

However, consider this:

https://lawandsocietymagazine.com/how-palestine-rejected-offer-to-have-its-own-state-5-times-in-the-past/

[quote]How Palestine rejected offer to have its own state 5 times in the past

In 2000, Israeli Prime Minis ...[text shortened]... srael as a lib, there just too many things that don't sit right with me regarding these discussions.

I’m a liberal and I don’t hate Israel, I do hate the current regime and what its armed forces are doing to the people of Gaza.
I’m sure you’ll find that if the Palestinian leadership had accepted that offer it would not have made it through the Knesset in one piece. The settler movement is a very powerful political force. Israel will not seriously negotiate with the Palestinians, why would they given the power imbalance and its right wing have the gall to claim that Hamas is an existential threat to the continued existence of Israel.
America is the key to peace in the Middle East and has been since 1947 until they stop using the enmity between the two sides as a foreign policy tool there will not be any

@vivify said
Thread after thread I've defended Palestinians from extremist views. When I do the same for Israel, now it's "unhinged lunacy"?

Interesting.

When I pointed out on another thread that Hamas' actions are a result of oppressed people, why didn't you object then? When people accused me of siding with terrorists for empathizing with Palestinians, how exactly are you any ...[text shortened]... ider Netanyahu just as monstrous as Hamas". This is how I wish everyone would approach this debate.

"When I pointed out on another thread that Hamas' actions are a result of oppressed people, why didn't you object then?"
Object what? I didn't see that statement but judging just by this sentence, it's true.

"When people accused me of siding with terrorists for empathizing with Palestinians, how exactly are you any different now? "
I don't give a fuk about people viewing any criticism against Israel (again, the government not the people) as anti-semite and pro-terrorist. That's just an easy way to spot the idiots.

"Your most spot on sentence was "I consider Netanyahu just as monstrous as Hamas". This is how I wish everyone would approach this debate."
You keep saying that. Andf then you list all the reasons why you "understand" why netanyahu commits effectively genocide.

Just the latest was "well you see, these 20k palestinian deaths wouldn't have happened if yasser arafat accepted a deal for a state decades ago".

This, along with all your other statements, excuse Israel, don't you see? We condemn Hamas strongly, no ifs and buts except maybe a distant "well, being opressed and desperate breeds extremism". Yet when Israel commits atrocites we always refer to them as retaliations. As defence. We see they break international law and we don't care. US backs them unconditionally. The media supports Israel, most of people are just now starting to realize the extent of the horror that is Palestine. The entire world wants a ceasefire and the US vetoes.


Israel doesn't need defence. Israel is not oppressed or in danger of being wiped off. What they are doing is indefensible and in no way keeps them safe. It ticks all the boxes of a genocide.

Americans need to put pressure on Biden and tell him this stance may cost him the second term he drools so much over. Israel needs to be isolated just like Russia

@zahlanzi said
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK8isk_M5nU&ab_channel=TheMajorityReportw%2FSamSeder

The zionism that won in Israel is the one that claims Jews must have a fortress state of their own and put a gun to the heads of anti-semites (which everyone who remotely questions zionism is) and be safe that way. The extreme vengeance fueled response to october 7th was in large part cau ...[text shortened]... raelites safe by stomping on the palestinians. To reestablish the illusion that they are in control.

Palestinians are Semites as well.
Both are descendants of Abraham if you believe the bible.

@zahlanzi said
"Your most spot on sentence was "I consider Netanyahu just as monstrous as Hamas". This is how I wish everyone would approach this debate."
You keep saying that. Andf then you list all the reasons why you "understand" why netanyahu commits effectively genocide.

This is where your misunderstanding is.

I pointed out on other threads that yes, Hamas is a terrorist groups and what they did on Oct 7th is abhorrent, but I can understand why they attacked given the oppression of the Palestinians.

In your view, am I condoning Hamas' murder of 1,200 people?

@vivify said
I agree that Israel will continue expanding due to the most hard-right government Israel has had in decades, if not ever.

However, consider this:

https://lawandsocietymagazine.com/how-palestine-rejected-offer-to-have-its-own-state-5-times-in-the-past/

[quote]How Palestine rejected offer to have its own state 5 times in the past

In 2000, Israeli Prime Minis ...[text shortened]... srael as a lib, there just too many things that don't sit right with me regarding these discussions.

Arafat wasn't offered a State at Camp David:

"The Camp David offer also had features that kept it from amounting to statehood in the full sense of the term. The new Palestine couldn’t have had a military and wouldn’t have had sovereignty over its air space—Israeli jets would roam at will. Nor would the Palestinians’ freedom of movement on the ground have been guaranteed. At least one east-west Israeli-controlled road would slice all the way across the West Bank, and Israel would be entitled to declare emergencies during which Palestinians couldn’t cross the road."

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2002/04/was-arafat-the-problem.html

That's not a "State".

@vivify said
I agree that Israel will continue expanding due to the most hard-right government Israel has had in decades, if not ever.

However, consider this:

https://lawandsocietymagazine.com/how-palestine-rejected-offer-to-have-its-own-state-5-times-in-the-past/

[quote]How Palestine rejected offer to have its own state 5 times in the past

In 2000, Israeli Prime Minis ...[text shortened]... srael as a lib, there just too many things that don't sit right with me regarding these discussions.

More details:

"In contrast to the story of the "generous offer" allegedly made by Barak, in reality the Israelis never actually made a formal offer to the Palestinians at Camp David, and submitted no written proposals. The only proposals offered by the Israelis were made orally, mostly through US officials, and lacked detail. The Israelis and Americans pressured Arafat to accept these vague proposals as "bases for negotiations" before moving on to other, more serious negotiations. These oral proposals, which Barak was careful to make conditional on Palestinian concessions, included:

An Israeli withdrawal from 91% of what Israel defined as the West Bank, which didn't include large portions of the West Bank that were unilaterally annexed to occupied East Jerusalem post-1967 before East Jerusalem itself was annexed to Israel in a move not recognized by the international community, or areas like the Latrun Valley. Israel's insistence on this definition of a much-reduced West Bank, rather than the internationally recognized pre-1967 boundaries of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, precluded agreement on a starting point for negotiations on borders.
Israeli annexation of the remaining 9% of the already shrunken West Bank in exchange for a 9:1 land swap for unspecified land in Israel.
The fertile and strategically important Jordan Valley along the border with neighboring Jordan would remain under Israeli control under the terms of an unspecified 99-year "lease."
On the future of refugees expelled from their homes during Israel's creation, the Israelis said the solution to their plight should be found "elsewhere" than Israel.
On the future of occupied East Jerusalem, Palestine would have sovereignty over the Muslim and Christian quarters of the Old City, but only a loosely-defined "permanent custodianship" over the Noble Sanctuary, the third holiest site in Islam.
Settlements in East Jerusalem were not up for negotiation.
Israel would retain control over Palestinian airspace and the electromagnetic spectrum.
Palestine would be a non-militarized state, sometimes referred to as "demilitarized," with only a police force for internal security.
Under the Israeli proposals, Palestinian areas in the West Bank would have been fragmented into four units, separated from each other and the outside world by Israeli settlements and their connecting roads, jeopardizing the contiguity and viability of any prospective Palestinian state."

https://imeu.org/article/what-did-in-fact-happen-at-camp-david-in-2000

@no1marauder said
Arafat wasn't offered a State at Camp David

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/bill-clinton-palestinians-israel-223176

Bill Clinton: ‘I killed myself to give the Palestinians a state’

“I killed myself to give the Palestinians a state. I had a deal they turned down that would have given them all of Gaza,” Clinton said.

@vivify said
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/bill-clinton-palestinians-israel-223176

Bill Clinton: ‘I killed myself to give the Palestinians a state’

“I killed myself to give the Palestinians a state. I had a deal they turned down that would have given them all of Gaza,” Clinton said.

LMAO!:

"“Clinton lied-and so did everyone else,” said Finkelstein, recounting the decade long campaign to pin the blame on Arafat. The documents from the Israeli state archive — “Response of the Government of Israel to the ideas raised by President Clinton regarding the outline of a Framework Agreement on Permanent Status” —show explicitly that Israeli reservations about the Clinton Parameters fell outside the plan that he presented."

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20230703-israel-not-arafat-scuppered-clinton-led-peace-deal/

@no1marauder said
"The Camp David offer also had features that kept it from amounting to statehood in the full sense of the term. The new Palestine couldn’t have had a military and wouldn’t have had sovereignty over its air space—Israeli jets would roam at will. Nor would the Palestinians’ freedom of movement on the ground have been guaranteed. At least one east-west Israeli-controlled roa ...[text shortened]... to declare emergencies during which Palestinians couldn’t cross the road."

That's not a "State".

https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/wars-conflicts-and-operations/world-war-ii/1945/victory-in-pacific.html

Specific terms include the loss of all Japanese territories outside the Home Islands, complete disarmament, and Allied occupation of Japan.

Was Japan not a state then?

@vivify said
https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/wars-conflicts-and-operations/world-war-ii/1945/victory-in-pacific.html

Specific terms include the loss of all Japanese territories outside the Home Islands, complete disarmament, and Allied occupation of Japan.

Was Japan not a state then?

I'd say "no".

It was occupied territory essentially ruled by a US general.

@no1marauder said
I'd say "no".

It was occupied territory essentially ruled by a US general.

Well, despite not being allowed to have a military they were still allowed to join the U.N. as a state (after the occupation ended).

@no1marauder said
More details:

"In contrast to the story of the "generous offer" allegedly made by Barak, in reality the Israelis never actually made a formal offer to the Palestinians at Camp David, and submitted no written proposals. The only proposals offered by the Israelis were made orally, mostly through US officials, and lacked detail. The Israelis and Americans pressured Arafat ...[text shortened]... ective Palestinian state."

https://imeu.org/article/what-did-in-fact-happen-at-camp-david-in-2000

Good point here.

You can't sign something that's sketchy and not well defined. I concede it's not Palestine's fault for turning it down.

@vivify said
Well, despite not being allowed to have a military they were still allowed to join the U.N. as a state (after the occupation ended).

Your quote is from the Potsdam Declaration, not the peace treaty.

In fact, Japan had a military before its admission into the UN (which wasn't until 1956):

"However, it has operated military forces in the form of the Japanese Self-Defense Forces since 1954. "

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

@no1marauder said
Your quote is from the Potsdam Declaration, not the peace treaty.

In fact, Japan had a military before its admission into the UN (which wasn't until 1956):

"However, it has operated military forces in the form of the Japanese Self-Defense Forces since 1954. "

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

Thanks for that info.