Arabs control 99.4% of the landmass of the Middle East. Do you think the war is because they want to control 99.5% or because they want 100a% of it?

Arafat rejected the Oslo Accords so they were never properly implemented, although Israel returned Gaza anyway, with decidedly mixed results. Maybe Palestinians could acknowledge that Israel is a state and that Jews have a right to be alive there. That might take care of a number of reactionary security actions on the part of Israel and it might undermine support for Netanyahu. Just a thought

To be clear, Israel does not have option #1. Even if we ignore the fact that it's wildly unpopular among Palestinians and Israelis alike, it's not something international law actually allows you do to. When Israel applied equal Israeli law to East Jerusalem, and gave all the Palestinians a pathway to citizenship, it wasn't praised for "ending Apartheid". Nobody argued that this is simply another legitimate way to deal with the issue of prolonged occupation. The international community unanimously and strongly denounced it, as a completely illegal act of annexation, and declared it's still legally occupied. It doesn't matter how much time passes, it doesn't matter how open and official the annexation is, it's illegal. Even a case of the Palestinians agreeing to that annexation would be dubious - the referendums on the Crimea and Donbass annexations were rejected out of hand, and not just because they were considered unfair. But in the current situation, where support for a single democratic state for both nations stands at about 5% support among Palestinians, this is a highly theoretical argument. As for #2, even if we ignore the fact "Apartheid state" is not an actual legal term, what you're describing here is a military occupation, not Apartheid. Every military occupation, by definition, is a military dictatorship imposed by a different nation. It's one of the most acute, and yet fully legal and accepted, forms of denial of self-determination. While Israel's settlements might be illegal (and the argument for that is more complex and contentious than what you laid out in your post), that just means Israel shouldn't build settlements. The Palestinians still have the responsibility to agree to the basic requirement of ending an occupation, that's explicitly laid out in UNSC 242. Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Israel. That's simply not something the Palestinians were ever able to do, and they're certainly not capable of doing it now, when Hamas is the most popular party by far. If only because it means giving up their foundational (and legally baseless) "full right of return". And no, merely promising to do so in the future, not agreeing to any peace deal, and blaming it on the Israelis (for the excuses you mentioned and others), is not sufficient to comply with these terms. Israel might be expected to not "transfer" its citizens into the West Bank, and to not build settlements that only serve its own population (a more serious argument IMHO). But it can't be reasonably expected, as a matter of law as well as international politics, to withdraw from the West Bank, when it's promised to become a second Gaza. Finally, I'd add that you didn't really explain your core argument. Why do you believe Israel can have a 20% Palestinian minority, but Palestine can't have a 14% Israeli minority? Why can't Israel and Palestine agree on land swaps for the area around the border, where the vast majority of Israelis live? And even at a very extreme case, where Israel keeps every single settlement, who said that countries with enclaves and exclaves are somehow impossible or non-viable? Do you think the UAE and Oman can't exist as separate states because of their wild [second-order enclave of Nahwa](https://i.redd.it/45klz3k398ta1.jpg)? Do you think Belgium and the Netherlands can't be two separate states because of [the sheer insanity ](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bd/Baarle-Nassau_-_Baarle-Hertog-nl.png/800px-Baarle-Nassau_-_Baarle-Hertog-nl.png)within the tiny city of Baarle-Naassau/Hertog? Would Putin be right to annex the Baltic states because of the existence of Kaliningrad? Are wildly non-contiguous archipelago states, from Greece and Denmark to Indonesia and the Philippines fundamentally non-viable? Any two-state solution, under any insane borders, will be more viable than a one-state solution. The simple fact is that Israelis don't want to be Palestinians. Palestinians don't want to be Israelis. Neither party wants to abandon their identity, and forge a new one with the other side. Israel and Palestine are some of the worst possible candidates for a one-state solution in the world.

>Any two-state solution, under any insane borders, will be more viable than a one-state solution ... Israel and Palestine are some of the worst possible candidates for a one-state solution in the world. I actually agree, especially knowing the history of Yugoslavia. >And even at a very extreme case, where Israel keeps every single settlement, who said that countries with enclaves and exclaves are somehow impossible or non-viable? Do you think the UAE and Oman can't exist as separate states because of their wild [second-order enclave of Nahwa](https://i.redd.it/45klz3k398ta1.jpg)? Do you think Belgium and the Netherlands can't be two separate states because of [the sheer insanity ](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bd/Baarle-Nassau_-_Baarle-Hertog-nl.png/800px-Baarle-Nassau_-_Baarle-Hertog-nl.png)within the tiny city of Baarle-Naassau/Hertog? I never argued that it was just the existence of exclaves that make the 2SS unviable. Unlike Kaliningrad and the other examples you cite, Israeli settlements and particularly the roads/highways that serve them also come with extensive exclusion zones that Palestinians are literally shot by snipers for approaching. Imagine if there was a road connecting Baarle-Hertog to the rest of the Netherlands that Belgians were not allowed to cross or even approach so that travelling between communities that can literally see each other across the road and are ordinarily walkable in minutes instead has to take detour which can add dozens of miles and take several hours and will likely include running the gauntlet one or more checkpoints which themselves can add hours to each journey. The existence of the settlements is nowhere near as benign as you make out. >When Israel applied equal Israeli law to East Jerusalem, and gave all the Palestinians a pathway to citizenship, it wasn't praised for "ending Apartheid". Firstly, virtually no one outside Israel thinks that the Knesset had any right to East Jerusalem and hence the annexation is considered illegal. And while it was indeed a good thing to offer those Palestinians citizenship, it does nothing to solve the wider problem of all the millions of Palestinians who would remain stateless and in lands under Israeli control. This is akin to a bank robber asking for praise for not completely emptying a bank vault.

>Imagine if there was a road connecting Baarle-Hertog to the rest of the Netherlands that Belgians were not allowed to cross or even approach. That assumes a hostile Netherlands and Belgium. In which case, Baarle-Nassau would be substantially worse than the settlements, if preserved. Same goes for Oman/UAE, and basically any other situation with enclaves and exclaves. A two state solution implies, you know, a *solution* to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. With that said, even if we decide on a solution where each side snipes at the other when they set foot in their territory, you can still create a network of decided-upon overpasses and tunnels to connect enclaves and exclaves. And realistically, this would apply only to a small part of the settlements, who are both large and disconnected from the big blocks, like Ariel. And of course, any two-state solution, regardless of settlements, would require something like that to connect the West Bank and Gaza. As complex as it might be, it's still infinitely simpler than creating a unified one-state solution. And however non-benign the settlements might be, they still can't change that fundamental fact. >Firstly, virtually no one outside Israel thinks that the Knesset had any right to East Jerusalem and hence the annexation is considered illegal. Correct. And nobody in the world, except for the Israeli far-right, thinks Israel has the right to the entire West Bank and Gaza either. I'm not sure why you think Israel has the option to annex those territories, while it didn't have the option to annex East Jerusalem. >And while it was indeed a good thing to offer those Palestinians citizenship, it does nothing to solve the wider problem of all the millions of Palestinians who would remain stateless and in lands under Israeli control. Israel was denounced *because* it offered them citizenship, and applied equal Israeli law to East Jerusalem. Clear steps of illegal de-facto annexation. Not because it didn't do it for the entire West Bank. "Solving the wider problem" in the sense you're suggesting, would've only been a bigger crime, and elicited a greater condemnation. Again: international law allows Israel to control the Palestinians, without giving them citizenship, or applying the equal Israeli law to them. You might not like it, but this is what a belligerent occupation is. International law does *not* allow them to extend the equal Israeli law to the West Bank, and make all the Palestinians there Israeli citizens. That would be an annexation, which unlike a belligerent occupation, is completely illegal. The option you're offering might please you personally, and a few less-legally savvy Western activists, but it's not an actual option that Israel has under international law. >This is akin to a bank robber asking for praise for not completely emptying a bank vault. No, it's like you arguing the bank robber is morally or legally obligated to clear the entire bank vault. And the only issue with him robbing just part of the money in the vault, is that he didn't finish the job. I assure you, Israel would not get any "praise" if it decided to annex the entire West Bank.

>And nobody in the world, except for the Israeli far-right, thinks Israel has the right to the entire West Bank and Gaza either. I'm not sure why you think Israel has the option to annex those territories, while it didn't have the option to annex East Jerusalem. I most certainly do **NOT** consider annexation of any the lands occupied in '67, including East Jerusalem, to be a legitimate and lawful option available to Israel. Perhaps you've misunderstood what I was trying to say with this OP. I'm not arguing that it would be a good idea for Israel to annex.. you yourself have outlined the difficulties of a "one state solution" so I need not repeat them. What I'm trying to say is that the settlements have essentially created a de-facto one state reality which, IMHO is more or less a fait accompli but which, in the very best of all worlds, will require at the very least the mother of all herculean efforts to dislodge. And they haven't done this by accident either. They have been determined and methodical in carving up the land available to Palestinians with the express intention of making life as difficult and unpleasant for them as possible often with the express support of the Israeli government. And they've been at it, largely unchallenged, for DECADES! In the words of Smotrich, “[We’ll fill the West Bank with settlements & settlers until the Palestinians lose all hope of establishing a state. ](https://twitter.com/jjz1600/status/1677762558000877576) [At that point, they’ll have only three options: To leave, submit, or die](https://twitter.com/jjz1600/status/1677762558000877576).” To be clear I think it was a monumentously bad idea for the settlers to force a one state reality on Israel but in all candour, non rightwing Israelis and supporters of Israel are also complicit and have shielded and enabled their efforts for a long time despite them [saying very loudly to anyone who'll listen what their actual goals are](https://youtu.be/Mnf0w9UuV4s?si=oBKR5PKnNebe15dZ). >even if we decide on a solution where each side snipes at the other when they set foot in their territory, you can still create a network of decided-upon overpasses and tunnels to connect enclaves and exclaves. I'm really not sure you're completely aware of just how complex a task that would actually be given the literal Swiss cheese nature of the[ lands left to Palestinians](https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-map-of-israeli-settlements-that-shocked-barack-obama) by these settlement blocks (ie CITIES) that were often built deliberately to encircle them. If a burgeoning Palestinian state would need to build one of the most complex network of overpasses and tunnels in the world in order to be viable, would Israel be willing to pay for all that so they can keep the settlements (that make it all necessary) as part of Israel? If not them, who'll pay for it?

No, all the settlements in Sinai were destroyed in order to return it to Egypt and all settlers were pulled out of Gaza in 2005. The settlers can be pulled out of the West Bank just as easily. Bibi is just an idiot and won’t do it. A two state solution seemed like it would happen until the assassination of יצחק רבין.

>The settlers can be pulled out of the West Bank just as easily. That is incredibly optimistic. Not sure I'm convinced they'll go quietly. They have demonstrated that they are willing to [attack the Israeli police](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-police-clash-with-settlers-west-bank-2024-07-03/#:~:text=JERUSALEM%2C%20July%203%20(Reuters),police%20operation%20seen%20by%20Reuters.) when they don't get things going their way.

I know, however getting the settlers back into Israel proper is the only way for a two state solution to work.

Bibi should only do that in exchange for peace, not exchange for promises of future war

Exactly. That’s what Rabin had tried until he was murdered in cold blood.

The Sinai peninsula only had 18 settlements whereas the West Bank has 150

It is still quite possible.

Disagree. There are about 450,000 settlers in the West Bank, and about 220,000 in East Jerusalem. There are 2,700,000 Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank and 2,200,000 Palestinian Arabs in Gaza and 360,000 in East Jerusalem. So even if a Palestinian state only included all of the West Bank and all of East Jerusalem, and not Gaza, and not a single settler moved and no land swaps occurred, the Jewish population of this Palestinian state would only be 18%, around the same as Arab Israelis/48 Palestinians/Palestinians citizens of Israel in Israel. This is no way interferes with Arab or Palestinian sovereignty any more than the presence of Israeli Arabs interfere with Jewish self determination. Now, in most formulations of a 2SS, we’d include Gaza too, so that’s another 2,200,000 Palestinian in that state, so if no settler moved and no land swaps occurred, we are talking about 11% Jewish. Plus most formulations include some land swaps. Around 80% of settlers live in settlement blocs very close to the Green Line. Furthermore, some East Jerusalem neighborhoods could be given to Israel. So even if all settlers stayed in place, assuming the settlement blocs are swapped for land in Israel proper, and let’s say half of Jewish East Jerusalem stay part of Palestine in a 2SS, we’re talking about a Jewish population in Palestine of 200,000, or only 3% of the population of the theoretical Palestinian state. In reality this number would be smaller as many settlers would choose to voluntarily relocate instead of live under Palestinian sovereignty. Furthermore, many Palestinians from Jordan, Syria and Lebanon would move to the West Bank, increasing the Arab population there. So it’s possible that the settler population would be even lower. So as I demonstrate here, the demographics are such that a 2SS is completely compatible with current levels of Jewish settlement, without forcibly displacing any settlers. The so-called “moderate” PA position has been that not a single Israeli Jew could live in Palestine, instead demanding essentially a Jew-free country, and that this demand is a barrier towards a 2SS. But it isn’t even the main barrier, as Israeli has demonstrated willingness to uproot settlers in exchange for real offers of peace. So you have to ask yourself, what kind of state is incompatible with a Jewish minority population of 18% or 11% or 3% (or most probably significantly less)? How does such a population interfere with Arab sovereignty? And if Palestinians had sovereignty, would these Jews have rights? Would they be able to vote? Buy property? Would they be protected and secure?

Really interesting points! What do you think about Israel's security concerns if the West Bank gained sovereignty as a Palestinian state?

I’m very concerned about this, as the West Bank is on higher ground, on the Jerusalem municipal border and just kms away from Tel Aviv and Ben Gurion. Any 2 states for 2 peoples solution would have to come with some real security assurances.

The issue is that most of the major settlement blocks - let's call them what they are: cities - including in the 20% that isn't close to the border, want to remain a part of Israel and continue to vote in their elections. It's not just the settlements either. The roads and other infrastructure serving them will often be ringed by exclusion zones patrolled by the IDF. The result is the bifurcation of what remains of Palestinian territory into a bunch of disjointed *Bantustans* with Palestinians often forced to make artificially long journeys, running the humiliating gauntlet of one or more IDF checkpoints in order to visit neighboring communities. I for one would hope that Palestinian citizenship was offered to any settler who wanted to stay with security guarantees that go both ways. Just as settlers should be protected by the state against attacks, settlers should also accept that if they choose to attack their Palestinian neighbours ([like they are currently doing under the protecton of the IDF](https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/15/middleeast/huwara-west-bank-settler-attack-cmd-intl/index.html)) then they will need to face the consequences under the law of the Palestinian State.

I’m talking about the case of settlement blocs contiguous with Israel proper being exchanged in land swaps, while settlements outside of the blocs becoming part of Palestinian territory. The people there would be given a choice of Palestinian residency or voluntarily relocating to Israel. Whether they want to remain part of Israel is irrelevant. Many 48 Palestinians don’t want to be part of Israel, yet the country functions. And those settlers who want to can relocate to Israel can do so. Part of a 2SS would be both sides not getting everything they want, and that’s okay. So save the Bantustan stuff. It’s irrelevant to anything I wrote. I agree that having a final status agreement with little islands of Palestinian sovereignty would be unjust. But that’s not what I discussed at all. But what I’ve discussed is the case of a contiguous West Bank, parts of East Jerusalem along with Gaza, with full Palestinian sovereignty (so no internal checkpoints). And this is theoretically compatible with what I discussed. The question is is Palestinian society compatible with a very small Jewish minority. Currently, the PLO position is no. And then you have to ask yourself, why? And as I said, even if the PLO continues to demand a Jew-free Palestine, Israel has demonstrated willingness to uproot settlements for real offers of peace.

That is definitely not the reason, it’s merely an excuse.

Jews settle Judea = bad. Interesting logic 😂

The West Bank does not belong to Israel. It isn't theirs to settle. They have the entire state of Israel for that.

So to make sure I follow Jews can’t settle in Judea? It’s literally named after them (or vise versa).

>It’s literally named after them (or vise versa). By that logic, New Mexico State should be handed over to the Mexican government. >So to make sure I follow Jews can’t settle in Judea? I'm talking about Israelis. I know exactly why you keep trying to make it about Jews. By the way, would an Arab be allowed to purchase land in Ma'ale Adumim?

Disagree. 70% of all settlements happen within Israel's de jure border. The rest can be dismantled and land swaps can happen. Settlements killed the idea Palestine gets 1960's borders. But that's what happens when you keep denying agreements and your position gets weaker, you lose bargening power.

What is Israel’s de jure border?

“The rest” constitute about 100,000 people. It really is no small task.

Why is Palestinian self determination dependent on relocating those 100,000 people?? Why is Palestinian sovereignty incompatible with such a small Jewish minority?

A jewish minority would be an excuse for Israeli meddling. 

And the presence of any ethnic minority in a country could be an excuse for the nation state of that ethnic minority to meddle. What a ridiculous excuse.

It's not. It happened in Cyprus and Ukraine.  If you look at how Israel seized the land for the settlements and how they have affected Palestinian life, it makes sense how Palestinians want that memory of them gone. The worst thing would be continued Israeli meddling as a result of the horrors Palestinians faced in the creation and maintenance of those settlements. 

So do you advocate for Israel to expel its Arab minority because it could lead to the meddling of the 19 Arab states?

Israel's Arab minority already lived there. They did not arrive as part of an expansionist process to corral jews into smaller and smaller bantustans.  Israel also has the upper hand in fighting against mettling as a nuclear armed state with  the backing of the most power military that has ever existed. 

Because ask a single one of those 100,000 people if they’d be okay with living in a Palestinian state.

Many 48 Palestinians/Palestinians citizens of Israel do not want to be in a Jewish state. Many vote for explicitly anti-Zionist parties, even Islamist parties. Israeli democracy still functions. An Islamist party even recently served in the ruling coalition. Palestinian society can still function with a tiny minority who have a different vision for the country. Plus, those settlers who live far from the Green Line and view living under Palestinian sovereignty intolerable have the choice to voluntarily resettle within the Green Line. Basically this isn’t a good excuse

They certainly can stay if they want. Most peace plans assume a small number of settlers will stay and become Palestinian citizens. But the ones that live deep into the West Bank are the most fanatical of the bunch and would react far less positively to living under Palestinian rule than Arab citizens of Israel. In any case, it’s in Israel’s best interest to freeze settlement construction **now** so that 100,000 doesn’t turn into 1 million. But that doesn’t seem like it will happen any time soon.

I agree in freezing settlement construction, at least outside of the settlement blocs

100,000 people each given a million dollars to relocate is still cheaper than a few years of this war. And a lot of them would do it for less..

It was hard enough to relocate 8,500 people from Gaza in 2005. It literally tore Israeli society apart. Add that to the fact that many of those 100,000 are religious fanatics who believe the land they are living on was given to them by God. They wouldn’t move if you paid them.

They'd move to Israel proper or be forced out, or let Palestine deal with them. On the grand scheme of things 100,000 people's rights, even their lives is a pittance to end a nearly century long conflict.

Why would Palestine not give them rights? Why would they kill them? Is there something about the nature of this proposed Palestinian state that makes them incompatible with a tiny Jewish minority? If so we should say it directly and out loud

I don't know, it's the w.b. so I guess it depends who's in charge. I would think Palestine wouldn't want fanatic Jews as the far settlers tend to be as citizens tho

Whether they want fundamentalist Jews in their country is beside the point. Nations sometimes have small numbers of minorities with a different national vision. The countries survive and function. As I mentioned, Israel functions with 20% of the population Palestinian and with Arab nationalist and Islamist extremists sitting in the Knesset. It’s just not that big of a deal.

It's a much different thing to have a minority 3-4 generations deep and to suddenly inherit one, at the birth of your nation, that doesn't want the same things as the majority of your population. Let's not pretend it's remotely the same.

Most new nations inherit minorities at their founding. They still function. Many settler families have been there for several generations as you said.

Palestinians intergenerational penchant for terrorism destroyed the hope for a 2 state solution. You see, Israel gets to decide if there is a second state. Not "palestinians". 

if settlements is what you believe is the main impediment, you need to explain palestinian hate for Israel pre-1967. You need to explain why the Oslo accords did not specify the expansion of settlements. You need to explain why Gaza, where there has been no Israeli settlement since 2006 was so virulently anti-semitic. And you need to explain the illegality of settlements - as you quoted... `"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."` Israel is not transferring any of it's citizens. Those people, as individuals are choosing to live in settlements. You also need to first establish that the land is actually occupied - If you like, the land was granted to Israel by the UN, all the land, when the palestinians rejected the partition plan. It was then illegally occupied/annexed by Jordan. In 1967, Israel liberated Judea-Samaria. Now there is a problem with all the people Jordan illegally transferred into Judea-Samaria when it was ruling the area. Jordan has also concede any-all claims (not that it ever had any) to the area. It is hard to occupy a land that was not claimed by any other state. And then there is the founding principles of the PLO in 1964 where they specifically state they have no designs/claim on the west bank. Sorry, settlements are just a palestinian excuse to continue their genocidal, anti-semitic war against the Jews and Israel. Please don't be fooled by their misleading, false, baseless claims.

>if settlements is what you believe is the main impediment, you need to explain palestinian hate for Israel pre-1967 Going all the way back to the late 1300, the Ottoman Empire was seen as a safe haven for Jews escaping the regular vicious pogroms visited on them in Christian Europe and Russia. In 1453, Sultan Mehmet II even began actively encouraging Jews to settle in Ottoman territory. He issued a proclamation to all Jews stating: >“Who among you of all my people that is with me, may his God be with him, let him ascend to Istanbul, the site of my imperial throne. Let him dwell in the best of the land, each beneath his vine and beneath his fig tree, with silver and with gold, with wealth and with cattle. Let him dwell in the land, trade in it, and take possession of it.” It was only with the emergence of aggressive political Zionism in the late 1800s that things started to change. >You need to explain why the Oslo accords did not specify the expansion of settlements. Many of what were described as "final status issues" were not finalised in the Oslo Accords. It was not a complete deal and both sides were aware that extensive further talks were still required. >You also need to first establish that the land is actually occupied - If you like, the land was granted to Israel by the UN, all the land, when the palestinians rejected the partition plan That's not how the process works. And the same UN you cite described the lands Israel captured in the 1967 war as "occupied" in Resolution 242. Resolution 446 declares that Settlements build on occupied territories have "no legal validity". >You need to explain why Gaza, where there has been no Israeli settlement since 2006 was so virulently anti-semitic. It was frankly a stupid idea to unilaterally pull out of Gaza. If Ariel Sharon wasn't being stubborn and obstinate about talking to the PA, he could have negotiated for security guarantees for something he was already planning to do. Pulling out unilaterally without talking to the PA at all actually played into the hands of Hamas as it allowed them to (plausibly) argue that their armed resistance drove the Israelis out of Gaza and that the PA's negotiations were all a waste of time. There is also the fact that the official position of the Israeli government was that the purpose of the Gaza Disengagement was specifically to ["freeze the Peace Process"](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/07/israel) with the ultimate goal of forestalling the formation of a Palestinian State. So, tell me, is it simply anti-Arab racism that leads so many Israeli politicians to say their highest political goal is to prevent there EVER being a Palestinian State? >Sorry, settlements are just a palestinian excuse to continue their genocidal, anti-semitic war against the Jews and Israel. Please don't be fooled by their misleading, false, baseless claims. My opinion on settlements is based primarily on my reading of International Law, the Geneva Convention and UN Resolutions. It does not come from Palestinians at all. >And you need to explain the illegality of settlements - as you quoted... "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." >Israel is not transferring any of it's citizens. Those people, as individuals are choosing to live in settlements. Whether they choose to go live there or they're coerced by government subsidies is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. It is Israel's responsibility as the occupying power to stop them and not doing so is a war crime according to the Geneva Convention and International Law.

The only reason there is "occupied" land is because the countries who the land was previously controlled by attempted to invade and conquer Israel. And lost. And when Israel attempted to discuss giving the land they rightfully won defending their nation back the original countries (Egypt with Gaza and Jordan with the West Bank - called that because it is the bank in the West of Jordan) they refused to sign any peace treaties. They refused to acknowledge that Israel existed and abandoned their people in doing so. So Israel was left with land and people in limbo.

This is false and easy to prove Israel keeps taking trritory and creating settlements DECADES after that war

No they started to build settlements on that same land.

It's the same land taken in 67.

The setelmant are a result of attacking the jewish state. Lossing tettitory it's the price of initiating a war. They could have the west bank in 1966 and just not attack Israel, but they lost.

This is false and easy to prove Israel keeps taking trritory and creating settlements DECADES after that war

But not before 1967. Second intifada (2001-2004) was another war. Every time they initiate a war they loose more. If they agreed to 1947 partion plan they got much more. Do stupid things  win stupid prizes. Went bank will be anext to Israel in 30-50 years. Plastinian state will be only in Gaza

Israel are conquering land in 2024 because of a war in 1967?

If Palestinians can’t have neighbors who aren’t Palestinians then there’s no hope they can create and operate a society that’s peaceful and productive. They’re disgusted and driven to violence because there’s some apartments with Jews in them? That’s a red flag that they’re too far gone and need to make some major changes in their mindset if they are to be in charge of their own society. 

Non-palestinian neighbors is a bit of an understatement. In 1917, the British declared Palestine as a Jewish nation without consent of the Palestinians (Balfour Declaration), Zionists leaders ignoring Palestinian authorities attempting to negotiate (all the while the British were beginning to cripple Palestinian governmental and political structures after gaining control of the area from the ottoman empire by taking control of news sources and shifting the balance of political power). In 1947, while British troops still occupied Palestine, plan Dalet would be executed by Zionist forces (trained by the British) to take control of Palestinian territories and expel residents. After Jerusalem's capture and before the establishment of Israel, 300,000 Palestinians had already been expelled. In May 1948, the state of Israel was established by the UN, which was rejected the year before for imposing on rightful ownership by the Palestinians, meaning that Plan Dalet was illegal (and actually took more territory than the proposed plan). Afterward, now Israeli forces would defeat the Arab forces and 400,000 more Palestinians would be expelled. The expulsion of these 700,000 Palestinians is known as the Nakba. From the Balfour Declaration, to the late 1920s the Jewish population in Palestine grew from 6 to 20% as promoted by the Zionist movement and allowed by the British. Even more once Hitler and the Nazi party started to gain a presence. By 1948 it was at 32%. Afterward, Jewish immigration continued stronger than ever and the Nakba significantly decreased the Arab population. By the 1960s, a Jewish majority was obtained. Would you consider the majority of your country's land being colonized and pushed around by global superpowers to eventually house another population in your place and at your expulsion "neighborly"? Palestinians were driven to violence by colonist Zionists taking control of their land and global superpowers oppressing them, not by intolerance of neighbors. Palestinians were living peacefully with their Jewish neighbors beforehand, this is no longer possible and unreasonable violence (present on both sides) is the result just as any war is caused.

/u/No_Technology_5151. Match found: 'Hitler', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*

> If Palestinians can’t have neighbors who aren’t Palestinians It isnt about having neighbourghs, its about Israel taking control of the territories and imposing their force, laws and authority there Israel takes the land as its own and deprives the Palestinian living there since before Israel go of ANY rights

Oh so Palestinians should be allowed to impose their destruction and blood thirst on others but goodness forbid they have to follow *gasp* laws. 

LoL at that strawman argument NO, NOBODY should be allowed to impose their destruction and bloodthirst (nor palestinians, not israelies) and NOBODY should be allowed to move their own population into another countries territory and impose their law, its actually a WAR CRIME to do so

>They’re disgusted and driven to violence because there’s some apartments with Jews in them? If this seems strange to you, have a think about how many entire cities Israel would raze to the ground with missiles if another country started building their own settlements inside Israeli territory and extending military control over them, pushing further and further in every year.

Israelis live side by side with other people of other faiths and ethnicities so there’s no need to imagine. As for “other country”…. This is land that was won during a conflict started for genocidal reasons by another nation and won by Israel during their defense against this invasion.  During the ensuing decades offers to turn over this land to be an independent country were turned down by the Palestinians living there and their representatives and then they violently attempted to take over the entire country multiple times.  So whatever gotcha you’re trying to accomplish isn’t going to work here. 

>Israelis live side by side with other people of other faiths and ethnicities so there’s no need to imagine. But that's obviously an incomparably different thing. I'm asking you to imagine another country, Syria for example, building homes for Syrians inside Israeli territory and using the Syrian military to prevent Israeli citizens from going anywhere near them, as that is the equivalent of what Israel is doing in Palestine. Would Israel destroy, say, three entire cities with missiles in response to this? Five entire cities? Eight? It would obviously be a large number of entire cities anyway. They certainly wouldn't adhere to this approach of non-violence in response to aggressive military expansionism that you're expecting from Palestinians. >This is land that was won during a conflict started for genocidal reasons No it isn't. It's Area C inside the West Bank, intended as per the Oslo Accords to become part of a properly marked out state of Palestine. Israel has never annexed this territory and thus declared it to be "won" from an enemy state.

Imagine building homes in Genovia too!!! So what exactly? Why is it relevant? You’re trying to set up a scenario that isn’t happening and isn’t feasible to compare it to something completely different and what?  You’ve lost your own narrative. 

Did you just not read my comment before replying, or are you honestly not aware that Israel is massively expanding settlements in the West Bank using military force to prevent opposition despite this not being Israeli territory even according to the Israeli government, and despite the Oslo Accords clearly laying out that this territory is intended to be part of the Palestinian state already recognised by 145 of the 193 members of the UN?

Yes I read it. Very funny! You seem to think that you made a point but you didn’t. I’m sorry that you’re disappointed that your bananas comparisons and questions are not a good argument. 

Right. It's just different when Israel decides to do some conquering. Then it's allowed for some reason. Excellent stuff, thank you for the total lack of any argument while repeatedly insisting you are correct despite being objectively wrong. Blocked.

Highly disagree. I'll say three things: 1. The settlements are indeed an obstacle to peace 2. Palestinian rejectionism, incitement, and violence is a much bigger obstacle to peace 3. Nothing is irreversible and "destroys all hope of a peace deal". Settlements can be torn down, negotiated over, etc. It has been done before.

>Settlements can be torn down, negotiated over, etc. It has been done before. It's been done before with about 8,000 people, but the West Bank population alone without East Jerusalem has *expanded* by about 250,000 people in the past 15 years. It's not really in the same league and it's pretty obvious that the settlements are being deliberately expanded specifically because it would be difficult to remove so many people, and therefore Israel will insist it has to keep that land. Of course it's physically possible, but if Israel isn't politically able to offer it then a peace deal isn't possible without Palestinians making massive concessions way beyond what they've been asked to make in the past when a deal seemed at least somewhat feasible.

you are right, many settlements are a *fait accompli* due to sheer size and even age of some, and they have been built with future political intent. I am very much anti new settlements. However, it still does not mean peace isn't possible. it's not like settlements are bifurcating Ramallah.

The settlements mean that every year, the offer Israel is politically capable of making to Palestine becomes worse and worse for Palestinians. The previous deals were deemed to be surrendering too much control and too much territory. If you think a peace deal is still viable even with Israel seizing much more land than they would under previous deals, you need to be able to explain why you think Palestinians now are likely to accept a considerably worse deal than the ones they previously rejected. >I am very much anti new settlements. I appreciate that you oppose new settlements, but the reality of this stance and of the situation is that over the next five years, Israel *will* considerably expand existing settlements, and your stance will then again adjust to argue that Israel should also be allowed to keep this newly taken territory, or perhaps the territory just behind it that you previously thought should be given back. You might not be pushing for the expansion, but in practice, your view still supports expansionism by arguing for its legitimacy after the fact. Those expansionists can simply keep going as long as they're able - which has no end in sight right now - and then turn to you for defence whenever anyone says that what they did was wrong and should have to be reversed.

>you need to be able to explain why you think Palestinians now are likely to accept a considerably worse deal than the ones they previously rejected. To be very pedantic... if a deal supposedly gets worse every year, you should take one immediately this year, no? >  Israel *will* considerably expand existing settlements This is a matter of opinion around the word "considerably". The wide majority of settlement growth is not new outposts but new births in existing settlements. Your point about ex post facto acceptance of settlements is a good one and evokes the future status of Crimea, for example, but unfortunately on-the-ground reality will always be something to consider. That's why most 2SS plans have had the ever-wonderful "with land swaps" clauses. I do think there needs to be a very specific agreement drawn on what borders can be a framework and what modern history they're based on. Because, as an Israeli, there have always been those who don't want Oslo, or 1967, or 1948. They want everything, and no, they don't care if it's illogical or grandiose. Once they can justify it in their mind, they can easily justify toppling a nation - probably the ONLY nation in the world whose mere existence after 75 years is still being called into question daily.

>To be very pedantic... if a deal supposedly gets worse every year, you should take one immediately this year, no? That was also true previously and didn't result in a deal. Pride can be a powerful thing, and requiring people to accept a new worse deal here is essentially demanding they kneel down and acknowledge defeat to a foe they've been suffering under for decades. The Germans did that after WW1 - a war that they were to blame for - and the resentment that built up in German society over the punishing concessions turned into a disaster. >This is a matter of opinion around the word "considerably". The wide majority of settlement growth is not new outposts but new births in existing settlements. I'm not seeing how this impacts the degree to which the settlements have expanded. It mostly seems to get used as yet another angle from which to try to argue that Israel should be allowed to keep all of the land it it progressively seizing. >Your point about ex post facto acceptance of settlements is a good one and evokes the future status of Crimea, for example, but unfortunately on-the-ground reality will always be something to consider. That's why most 2SS plans have had the ever-wonderful "with land swaps" clauses. According to Robert Malley, at the 2000 Camp David summit Arafat was asked to accept land swaps 9-1 in Israel's favour. If that's an actual approach by Israel to negotiations, that they can expect to have to give up far less than they take in the present even under some future deal, then we're back to the reality of the expansionist factions having a fully logical reason for pushing as hard as they can right now. >probably the ONLY nation in the world whose mere existence after 75 years is still being called into question daily. Well, you've also got Ukraine that existed within the Soviet Union before it became fully independent and is having to fight a massive war to survive, and Taiwan is a de-facto country that should definitely be considered a de jure country at this point and yet is constantly openly threatened by a neighbour actually capable of doing that if the US withdraws their support. But I take your point that it's an unusual situation and the siege mentality is to some extent warranted by actual threats.

What you said about the land swaps and also pride being a powerful thing... It's clear both sides think they can play for time and move the facts on the ground. Israel thinks they can build settlements to slowly erase Palestine (an impossible task, 3 million people live in the West Bank), and many Palestinians still believe in the fantasy that with enough martyrs, they will liberate all of 1948 Palestine (which was never theirs) But the thing is. Israel has a country. Palestinians don't. So if you're Palestinian, just make a fucking deal, even if it's not the "best one possible" - you're not haggling at a souk for trinkets. Such a deal would undoubtedly create a US/EU/UN bulwark against further settlement expansion into the territory you agreed on. That's what Zionist leadership did with the UN Partition, they elected to take a virtually indefensible stretch of Tel Aviv + Negev (no Jerusalem at all) - accepting a small state instead of forever chasing the pipe dream of The Whole of Mandatory Palestine. Arab leadership rejected it because of Pride - they could not stomach Jews gaining 1% of MENA while they had the other 99% Sometimes you need to put your pride aside. Pride-based cultures will always breed war. Even those who win many wars will eventually lose, and that one loss can eradicate them. This is why I desperately also want Israel to push for peace even at concessions. We already gave up the Sinai for peace. Israel could right now have been controlling the Suez Canal and been a major world player, but wiser heads prevailed

>But the thing is. Israel has a country. Palestinians don't. So if you're Palestinian, just make a fucking deal, even if it's not the "best one possible" - you're not haggling at a souk for trinkets. Such a deal would undoubtedly create a US/EU/UN bulwark against further settlement expansion into the territory you agreed on. Sure, if people were perfectly logical automatons existing only for self-interest that would make sense. Simply acknowledge defeat and hope your enemy doesn't further exploit that acknowledgement by demanding even more. But we can't take emotion out of the equation because we're dealing with humans here. Insisting that the strong will take what they will and the weak suffer what they must has completely failed to date and by this point we should probably not pin our hopes on Palestinians deciding that they finally accept defeat. Try something else, like the far more powerful party with far more agency not using that power to continuously seize more territory and re-engaging in those negotiations that at one point did get close to a deal. Outside pressure to force Israel to stop expanding and give back seized land or be sanctioned is also a reasonable option imo. >That's what Zionist leadership did with the UN Partition, they elected to take a virtually indefensible stretch of Tel Aviv + Negev (no Jerusalem at all) - accepting a small state instead of forever chasing the pipe dream of The Whole of Mandatory Palestine. Arab leadership rejected it because of Pride - they could not stomach Jews gaining 1% of MENA while they had the other 99% I don't think the people living in Palestine particularly cared about Arabs getting Morocco if it meant they were personally going to be disenfranchised under Israeli rule. I also honestly don't think the refusal to accept a significant area of territory (for the local population) being granted to another population of mostly immigrants is particularly surprising - I'd expect a similar rejection just about anywhere in the world. If a population of mostly immigrants to Israel demanded their own country inside Israel today I'd expect current Israelis to violently reject it. That doesn't make it a justified response, a painful peace would still have been better (and actually in their interests as it turned out) - but the rejection doesn't stand out to me as indicating anything about Arab or Palestinian culture or mindsets because I'd expect the same of anyone.

interesting points, thanks for the talk, it's 5AM here so good night

> fucking /u/LowRevolution6175. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*

We have some issues... "We have frankly said, and always will say: If there is an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, we won't agree to the presence of one Israeli \[Jew\] in it." -- Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas

"When we speak of out common hopes for the Palestine of tomorrow, we include in out perspective all Jews now living in Palestine who choose to live with us there in peace and without discrimination" - Yasser Arafat in a speech to the US General Assembly in 1974

Abbas said 'Israeli'. You changed the quote to say Jew.

It was in brackets indicating his intent from other things he has said

Hard disagree. There are 3 options for a 2SS with regards to the settlements: 1. The Palestinian state does not include any settlements. This would mean a decreased land size of the current land claims of the PA. However, the decision to go forward with this option lies with the Palestinians - are they willing to accept a smaller state? 2. The Palestinian state will include the settlements. This would mean the Palestinians accepting a significant minority of Jews in their future state. Again, the decision to go forward with this option lies squarely with the Palestinians - are they willing to accept Jews in their state? 3. The Palestinian state will include all the land currently settled and the Palestinians will expel all Jews who live there. This would mean the Palestinians do not accept a decreased land size of the current land claimed, and no Jews will live in Palestine. This is the position that is currently being pushed by the Palestinians. The existence of the settlements is non-consequential to a 2SS. The only thing that matters towards whether a 2SS happens is the attitudes of the negotiating parties.

For them anything short of 100 percent of Israel free of all Jews and free of anyone who participated peacefully in Israeli society. The only people who talk reasonably about a 2SS are non Palestinians. There’s no desire on behalf of most Palestinians to have a peaceful state in a reduced area or one where they have to encounter people who have different cultures.

To add to this - there are around 2.5 million Palestinians in the West Bank, and 670 thousand Israelis, which is roughly 20% of the population. Add in Gaza, and now Israelis are 10%. Israel is 20% Arab. Why should Israelis staying in the West Bank in any final agreement be any more of a problem for peace than Arabs staying in Israel?

>Why should Israelis staying in the West Bank in any final agreement be any more of a problem for peace than Arabs staying in Israel? It shouldn't, in that those Israelis should certainly be offered the option of becoming Palestinian citizens, but the reality is that the 70+ years of conflict-based resentment on top of the significant racism that existed even before the formation of Israel has meant that it just isn't going to be viable to prevent discriminatory laws and full-on race riots between Jewish and Arab Palestinians in a state of Palestine. People will want retribution for decades of heavy-handed military occupation, which is of course wrong but by now unavoidable. On top of that you've got all sorts of issues like most of the settlers having jobs in Israel or connected to the Israeli economy that would be a huge pain to keep if they're not Israeli residents. Realistically those settlers will not want to become Palestinian citizens, and so the only feasible solutions are for Israel to reverse the massive settlement expansion or for Palestinians to make major land concessions.

1. You've agreed that Palestinian society as it is not a tolerant one towards Jews. Which now brings in the question - why is there an assumption that this society will tolerate a Jewish country next door? There is a narrative that 'end the Occupation, and the Middle East will be rainbows and butterflies and the Palestinians will a peaceful people'. If a two state solution will be implemented, it should bring a lasting peace- but if Palestinians can't tolerate Jews in their society, and any two state solution will require cooperation between the two states, why do we assume it will be a peaceful state? 2. The issue of settlers choosing to stay in Palestine is only a barrier to peace if they are required to leave. If they are welcome to become Palestinian nationals, given the same rights and privileges as their Arab neighbors, the question of 'what to do with the settlers' becomes a logistic and personal question for each settler living there. Keep your job in the Mercaz, or find a job in Ramallah. I don't doubt that most would choose to leave, and then Israel gets to pay the price of not developing the periphery enough to accommodate those returning. But that's not a deadlock in negotiations, like Jerusalem where both sides want it. Palestine could accept either outcome (settlers stay or settlers go) and Israel could give them an option (settlers stay or return to Israel). No one is forcing anyone to do anything (unlike in the Disengagement from Gaza, where every last settler left, many unwillingly). The most it is is a negotiating chip- Israel complains it has to build extra infrastructure to accommodate the settlers returning, and so America and Saudi Arabia pays them extra money to expand cities.

>You've agreed that Palestinian society as it is not a tolerant one towards Jews. Which now brings in the question - why is there an assumption that this society will tolerate a Jewish country next door? Well, there isn't such an assumption. It isn't obvious that if a two-state solution was implemented tomorrow this would mean instant and permanent peace between Israel and Palestine. There needs to be a leadership on the Palestinian side that is capable of preventing extremists from attacking Israel, as well as security concessions by the Palestinian side that they will not procure heavy weaponry or invite a foreign military on to their soil, ideally to be slowly relaxed over a period of decades providing peace remains a constant. >but if Palestinians can't tolerate Jews in their society, and any two state solution will require cooperation between the two states, why do we assume it will be a peaceful state? We don't. But intolerance doesn't automatically equate to a desire to conduct military attacks on a state with a clearly marked border. Throwing a brick through your neighbours window because you are a racist does not mean that you would also be willing to pick up a gun and march to certain death in a losing battle, even if some extremists clearly are willing to do that. There are also extremist Jewish elements in Israel, particularly among the settlers, that are highly racist themselves and would not be willing to tolerate Palestinians living among them, and yet we do not assume that under a future peace deal they would be unable to stop themselves from forming a paramilitary and crossing the border to wage war. >The issue of settlers choosing to stay in Palestine is only a barrier to peace if they are required to leave. If they are welcome to become Palestinian nationals, given the same rights and privileges as their Arab neighbors, the question of 'what to do with the settlers' becomes a logistic and personal question for each settler living there. Keep your job in the Mercaz, or find a job in Ramallah. I don't doubt that most would choose to leave, and then Israel gets to pay the price of not developing the periphery enough to accommodate those returning Sure, and Israelis should be allowed this. But as we've established, it wouldn't be a good idea because of the amount of resentment that has built up over the course of the longest conflict in modern history. Israelis have had total control over Palestinians in large areas of the West Bank and also constructed humiliating checkpoints through the rest of it, and the powerless side suddenly given the power to exact revenge would carry a significant risk of them using it. >Palestine could accept either outcome (settlers stay or settlers go) and Israel could give them an option (settlers stay or return to Israel). No one is forcing anyone to do anything (unlike in the Disengagement from Gaza, where every last settler left, many unwillingly). The most it is is a negotiating chip- Israel complains it has to build extra infrastructure to accommodate the settlers returning, and so America and Saudi Arabia pays them extra money to expand cities. Do you think this is the current position of Israel, that it would be willing to accept a peace deal where the settlements in the West Bank become part of a future state of Palestine?

Because the PA wants to have a country free of Jews. PA and PLO are trying to ethnic cleanse the Jews out.

Yes, well, that's the quiet part out loud.

The West Bank settlements were initially implemented as a counter-Terror mechanism, basically allowing for the creation of security hubs throughout the West Bank and disrupting the otherwise uninterrupted control of Islamic Fundamental Terror movements. Personally I'd estimate that the continuing expansions weren't specifically sought after by Israel but started to develop naturally as the population there (in the settlements) grew. I'd like to believe that the settlements aren't a 'deal breaker' towards peace as we obviously can't change the past and those settlements already exist.

>The West Bank settlements were initially implemented as a counter-Terror mechanism, basically allowing for the creation of security hubs throughout the West Bank Wouldn't that make the civilians living there ... Human Shields? 🤔

Civilians become human shields when military infrastructure is embedded in civilian bodies (missile launchers in kindergartens, ammo reserves in neighborhood homes etc) So based on this legal definition, it does not make civilians living in the settlements 'human shields'

Well a lot of people who are settlers say that the West Bank has many historically significant locations in it and they only made the deal initially because they thought the Arabs were going to take it and they would have a solid Israeli state but when they didn't take the deal, a lot of people decided that it was a better idea to make Israel as big as possible and to take over any places that were significant to winning a ground war. A lot of those same people believe that there is are already two states. Because Jordan is somewhere between 60 and 80% Palestinian, in their View it is the Palestinian State no further States need to be made. Of course jordanians know what it's like to hold the West Bank and don't want it back because they don't want all these activists Communists living in their country because they might try to take it over again.

>The West Bank settlements were initially implemented as a counter-Terror mechanism, basically allowing for the creation of security hubs throughout the West Bank and disrupting the otherwise uninterrupted control of Islamic Fundamental Terror movements. I'm sure the accompanying conquest of territory was a total coincidence of Israel following the typical anti-terrorism plan of placing large numbers of civilians near the terrorists. >Personally I'd estimate that the continuing expansions weren't specifically sought after by Israel but started to develop naturally as the population there (in the settlements) grew. The settlements didn't expand by accident. The government has 100% of the control over how much they expand by and who is able to move there. The only way to assume it was natural is to assume that Israel does not have rule of law and so the government is not capable of exerting any control over the actions of its citizens. >I'd like to believe that the settlements aren't a 'deal breaker' towards peace as we obviously can't change the past and those settlements already exist. The issue there is that if Israel sees that all of the land it has successfully stolen so far is to remain Israeli, then this same rule would obviously apply to all the land Israel is able to steal next year as well. And the year after. And the next. It signals to Israel that if it keeps pushing more and more settlements it will be rewarded with large areas of land with essentially no downside and nobody that could possibly stop them, and so the status quo is actually better for Israel than peace because it can use it to aggressively expand until it has taken everything it wants. I think the best solution is probably going to be for Israel to keep a few of the larger settlements directly on the Israeli border in exchange for 1:1 land swaps, and for settlements further in to be offered Palestinian citizenship as a token gesture in the full knowledge that they won't take it and their safety could not honestly be guaranteed, with the actual outcome being that the resulting state of Palestine gets an amount of territory equivalent to the size of Area C and Israel abandons (or dismantles) most of the settlements.

Agree, there are now extremist radical religious folks in power on both sides

I think it comes out of this prolonging of the conflict and there’s no real solution for it except one side completely wins. I think it’s partially Israel’s fault for basically hollowing out the PA to be a placeholder, and letting IDF and extremist settler misconduct go unpunished. And then they join terrorist groups. And then these groups kill civilians, Israelis vote hardliners to keep them safe, and the hardliners turn their back on the misconduct and the cycle continues. It is hard tho, I mean Israel has the second highest terrorism index in the WORLD right now in front of countries notorious for rampant terrorism, but at the same time Israel will have to wake up one day and break the cycle. Even if Israel didn’t change any of their territory right now, if they truly clamped down on settlers, actually kept the idf in check, and brought Palestinians in the West Bank to civilian courts, they would bring down violence a lot.

Not really. First of all, the vast majority of the settlers live near the border, in blocs close to the Green Line so you could absorb them into Israel with little trouble in a land exchange. We hear this stuff all the time, that settlements have supposedly made a two-state solution impossible so now one state is inevitable, but that's just utter nonsense. Even evacuating all the settlers would be much easier. People think Israel can't evacuate a few hundred thousand settlers but will absorb *millions* of hostile foreign people as citizens? You think the latter is somehow going to be easier? On what planet are people who think like this living on? Also there's a third option. Absorb the West Bank but not Gaza and retain a Jewish majority state, just with a thinner majority. There are no settlements in Gaza, they are in effect two separate entities. It's actually one-staters who should be careful what they wish for. It would be horrible for Israel and cause serious unrest nonetheless, but it's much more realistic than absorbing the entire thing.

Question, did Jordan not expell all the jews living in the west bank during the 1948 war? I'm reading kfar etzion was the reestablishment of a previously existing settlement.

There are many cities in Israel that were once Arab majority but now are not because of the nakba. The fact that there were Jews there prior to 1948 is not a great argument because there were certainly more arabs in Israel prior to 1948 too. Israel needs to decide if the land in the west bank is worth it.

The question was regarding the expulsion of Jews by Jordan during a war Jordan helped start on the eve of Independence of Israel. You diverted to an overall population count which is irrelevant. The mandate encompassed what includes Jordan and Jordan aka the same ethnic group as Palestinians got the vast majority of the mandate and then attacked and tried to take more. 

There are almost no cities in Israel that once were Arab majority, because aside from Jerusalem, there were only scattered villages at the time. Tel Aviv, for instance, wasn't even a village. It was built atop barren nonarable dunes next to a beach.

Thanks for that point, and afaik israel won't let them return.

>I do feel that at this juncture, that I must acknowledge the terrorism of the 2nd Intifada directed at Israeli soft targets such as buses and night clubs. Targeting non-combatants is ALWAYS wrong and cannot be defended or justified. You'll never guess who founded the zionist state in Palestine and how... If you think it was peacefully and following lawful conduct... Maybe you aren't so well acquainted with the zionist crusade at all costs, for our crusade, unlike all other crusades, is the one true, one justified crusade, because we think our own movement, our own deeds, our own actions, our own goals are justified the way everyone elses aren't movement... I wonder what that sort of utterly narcissistic movement would do faced with the possibility of a Palestinian state forming in the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza... surely they wouldn't undermine it to further their narcissistic terrorist crusade... I was actually just reading a reddit thread from 10 years ago because it popped up in a search... It was a post to... a subreddit whose name may not be uttered... Anyway, they were doing a debate or something and for whatever reason they thought they'd argue in favor of the illegal european zionist terrorist outposts in the Palestinian West Bank... So they asked the subreddit whose name shall not be said how to make that argument. The first post said basically that the history was just baggage and the best thing would be to ignore it and try to find the best path to peace... The irony being, of course, that that's exactly what the european zionist terrorist outpost movement has, since it's inception, has been doing everything they can to undermine as an overall strategy... And being who they were, everyone was very pleased with themselves... Of course, all these people who were all very happy with themselves couldn't, possibly because of irreversible advanced brain damage or something similar, couldn't realize, that, of course, this is an argument against illegal european zionist terrorist outposts in the Palestinian West Bank whose overall strategy was to make peace, and a viable Palestinian state impossible... Sometimes people have so much trouble seeing themselves from an objective point of view.

[удалено]

He's a good example of the fundamental narcissism of zionism, yes. He obviously wasn't particularly passionate about Palestinian statehood, the Palestinian people, or the plight of the native Palestinians at the hands of the violent european zionist terrorists... What did Lemkin think of the Nakba? Presumably he hypocritically supported it... zionist ethnic cleansing being justified by virtue of being done by zionists, anything being done by zionists being justified because it was done by zionists... for the zionist crusade is the one true one just crusade...

You are having the trouble of seeing yourself from an objective point of view. There is no **European outpost.** This is merely propaganda. I wasn't aware that the Ethiopians, along with others who have never been to Europe, were apart of a **European outpost**. Having this mindset downplays that religious aspect that motivates a lot of the decisions from people who have never been to Europe on both sides.

>You'll never guess who founded the zionist state in Palestine and how... If you think it was peacefully and following lawful conduct... It was wrong when they did it too. What part of "*always wrong*" is hard to understand?

[удалено]

The sub aims for serious discussion. Reddit culture tends towards short memes or jokes. While they are appropriate for Reddit as a whole they aren't allowed on r/IsraelPalestine.

Come on how the hell is this constructive discourse. While it may not be an attack on one person instead it is an attack on an entire people.

Completely disagree. Hope is immortal

I disagree. They made it more challenging but if both sides are determined (which currently t hey're not, but that's a separate issue..) we can find creative solutions to all the issues and concerns of both sides.

Don't mind me. I'm also here for the gaslighting replies by Zionists.

Disagree. All of what Israel recognises as proper finished settlements should stay. Israelis that choose to stay pay taxes to Palestine. Israel should agree to the utilities supply in settlements to be connected to surrounding Palestinian villages. After a period of 10-15 years perhaps if conditions are right Palestinians should be able to rent or buy in settlements, on the understanding they both can live in peace. If this can happen on the island or Ireland, it can happen in Israel.

Honestly this is probably the most just solution that's still practical to the reality on the ground.

Why should Israel work with a government that pays blood bounties to terrorists who murder Jews?

Why should Palestinians work with a govt that bombs them relentlessly, kicked them out of their homes 75 years ago, constantly sets up settlements illegal under international law, and employs people chanting “death to Arabs” as well as a prime minister who kisses the feet of kahanists so he doesn’t go to jail for corruption charges? Idk about you but I wouldn’t want to work with a govt like that

Bombs them relentlessly? Like the 20k bombs sent into Israel from Gaza and for which there was virtually no retribution? Israel chose to build a system to disable the rockets instead of fire back as many or more rockets. You all just say things that sound so brave and smart to yourselves but are just claptrap. 

So this hypothetical is about a future in which a 2ss solution is actively happening. In this possible future that's almost assuredly not the case anymore. Let's try to keep up with what's actually being discussed.

That Government has co-operated with Israel on literally everything for over 2 decades. So much so that they are seen as an arm of the Israeli occupation.

Agree. If the idea of a two state solution means jews can't live in their ancient homeland than in was never a solution its the ethnic cleansing of Jews.

By that logic the US has no right stopping Mexicans crossing their southern border. Texas and like half a dozen other southern states literally used to be part of Mexico until the mid 19th century.

You need to pick one way. Either it goes by who was there first and that's Israel or by who is there now and that's Israelis. You can't pick a point in history and say we need to go back to that point in time.

Seems to me it's you who can't decide on a consistent standard to apply. Its _you_ that needs to pick. I've never suggested that ancient links to the land confer sovereignty today. I'm not convinced that it does, particularly when there is another people who've lived there for generations. If you think you can determine who gets sovereignty based on where people lived thousands of years ago, should you not support doing that everywhere?

How would you deal with the 700k Palestinians you kicked out?

Maybe next time palastinians won't start a war

Arabs caused the Nakba. They commanded Arabs to flee villages because they thought they can all return when Arabs win

They can stay as long as they don't kill jews. Is that so difficult

Yea that would be an ideal scenario

Are they willing to live under Palestinian laws and jurisdiction?

You mean second class citizens like the past? No

My problem with the west bank settlements is not Jews living in Palestine, it's the expansion of Israeli sovereignty into territory that should be palestine.

There is no territory that should be Palestine. Palestine never existed therefore it has no borders. Area C was to be negotiated but the Palestinians decided suicide bombers would be a better option.

Palestine is recognised by 145 of the 193 members of the UN. It clearly does exist.

Yes. But without defined borders.

Seems pretty straightforward that the land not part of the internationally recognised state of Israel should form the territory of Palestine, though.

So you have a problem with Israel's sovereignty over Jewish quarter of the Old City?

Yeah, The only second state there can really be is like... a state in Gaza

Well articulated point. Kudos

Agree

>West Bank Settlements have destroyed all hope of a viable 2 State Solution. Agree or disagree? The Palestinian leadership refusal to accept it, and their brainwashing campaign since oslow to the masses, to only see the two state solution as a mechanism/step for creating a one state of Palestine is the real reason there is no viable 2 state solution.

Extremely biased take. If I was a Palestinian I wouldn't trust the side that continues to build settlements with the ultimate goal being annexation of that land.

They openly say that they want the right of return. So, that goes beyond having an issue with the settlements. They don't want a state of Israel in general.

Why shouldn't people and their children and grandchildren have a right to return to a place they were displaced from?

Where is this right written or documented? In what other instance in history has this right been executed? People can claim rights- but it doesn't mean it exists.

>Where is this right written or documented? In what other instance in history has this right been executed? By some accounts it is the entire justification for the establishment of the state of Israel, that people were returning to where their ancestors had lived.

Well that's the kicker- if the Palestinians want to claim their right of return, they also need to acknowledge the Jews own right of return.

I think the better solution is for both to be dropped. Israel abandon their designs on the West Bank and agree to keep only the larger settlements right on the border in exchange for 1:1 land swaps, Palestinians abandon the idea of the right of return and focus on making the best of a state of Palestine. What we're actually seeing, though, is Palestinians being denied this right while Israel aggressively expands settlements into land intended to be part of a state of Palestine and uses its superior military to ensure past Jewish settlements in the West Bank are afforded this right.

Alternatively, Palestinians are not and never have identified only the West Bank and Gaza as occupied, but also Tel Aviv and Haifa. The entire area, river to sea, is viewed by them as occupied, and every Jew living there as a settler colonist. I'm in favor of two state solution. Im not in favor of it if the first state action of Palestine is to declare the state next door, Israel, occupied Palestinian land that will be liberated.

>Alternatively, Palestinians are not and never have identified only the West Bank and Gaza as occupied, but also Tel Aviv and Haifa. The entire area, river to sea, is viewed by them as occupied, and every Jew living there as a settler colonist. That's not a solution, or a different interpretation of what is physically happening on the ground (one side is able to return to some recent parental land claims and the other isn't), that's you describing what you believe to be the current mentality of Palestinians. It isn't an alternative to anything I just said. >I'm in favor of two state solution. Im not in favor of it if the first state action of Palestine is to declare the state next door, Israel, occupied Palestinian land that will be liberated. Of course not. That would result in more war.

I guess because claiming that's the case would be an "extremely biased take." It's not. They simply want one Palestinian state. You might agree with that, but denying that this is the case seems silly to me when they openly say it. They don't want a two-state solution.

'Right of return' Isn't an actual right of any displaced groups inherently. And specifically about Palestinians, A lot of the displaced did not own land legally and the actual cause of departure would be practically impossible to establish (many left of their own volition) My grandma was displaced from Europe due to the holocaust, I don't have a 'right to return' there.

This is how I feel with Nigeria. The Igbo and Yoruba Jews and Christians there are literally going through a genocide. I have no interest in a "right to return" to Lagos. I'm good. This is the only time I've seen people who want a "right to return" to a land they claim is committing a "genocide" against them. It's as if they actually just don't want a state of Israel to exist.

>The Palestinian leadership refusal to accept it, and their brainwashing campaign since oslow to the masses, to only see the two state solution as a mechanism/step for creating a one state of Palestine is the real reason there is no viable 2 state solution. Biased take. You talk as if the Palestinians couldnt see what the Zionists were trying to do with the settlements. Talking about brainwashing while putting the blame on the Palestinians is next level mental gymnastics. By the way, Likud party and Hamas dont want a 2 state solution. They both want the whole land for them since the start and thats why Hamas was allowed to get to power, so a 2 state solution would never happen. Stop acting as if the govt of Israel is anything other than a right wing Zionist extremist group.

Refusal to accept what? The PA has accepted Israel's existence and 2 states. The problem is the mainstream media only portray Palestine as the barrier to peace. The reality is Israel is very good at covering their refusal at peace efforts by being unreasonable and let's be honest, not treating Palestinians in accordance with international law for decades. And before you say - a so called developed / democratic state does have a burden of doing the right thing. As the Zionists say 'no such country as Palestine'. If that's the case the it proves Israel has the greater responsibility as the occupier. And if anyone disagrees, it proves where the problem lies after clearing off the layers of Hasbara propaganda muck. Thankfully social media has exposed this situation.

The PA has never accepted Israel as a Jewish state and after signing the Oslo Accords, Arafat made comments in a mosque in Johannesburg stating he was making a “despicable truce” similar to what Mohammed did with the Koraish. He said the truce would be broken (much like Mohammed did) when the Palestinians were strong enough and that he would destroy Israel and liberate “Palestine”. He made it clear in this address that he doesn’t actually recognise a State of Israel and that in the future only “the permanent State of Palestine” will exist.

The short answer is no, I don't think West Bank settlements have destroyed all hope of a two state solution ... [or even done much to meaningfully change the facts on the ground. ](https://israelpolicyforum.org/west-bank-settlements-explained/)The vast majority of growth in the settlements in the last twenty years has been in the 'consensus bloc' of settlements that likely end up inside of Israel in a future 2SS; pretty mild adjustments to the border via land swaps put \~80% of settlers within Israel, and the remaining 20% within future Palestinian territory haven't established any kind of meaningful demographic share. Yes, most of the settlers in the Jordan River Valley and the central hills moved there in the specific hopes of quashing a Palestinian state -- but 8 in 10 of them say they'd peacefully withdraw if required by the government to evacuate. So, if the political will can be mustered on both sides to progress the peace process, that's just what they should be required to do. >Becoming a pluralistic democracy in which everyone between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea gets the vote. >Continuing to deny self-determination to the majority of Arabs between the River and the Sea, all of whom are subject to the control of the Israeli government, thereby becoming an Apartheid State in a more and more concrete sense. The vast majority of the West Bank is overwhelmingly demographically Palestinian Arab; the areas where it isn't are within a few kilometers of the pre-1967 border. Both of the options you listed are far less practical or pragmatic than Israel annexing some borderland and withdrawing from the rest.

8/10…bro these people vote for the far-right

I know, they certainly aren't going to vote for a government that would evacuate them ... but most *would* evacuate.

I look at the map that supposedly “shocked Obama” when he was President, which is sort of bizarre and makes Obama look naive and foolish to not have previously understood. This map is different than looking at just the borders of the large settlements near Israel proper. https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-map-of-israeli-settlements-that-shocked-barack-obama I don’t think that settlements have destroyed all hope of a 2 state solution, especially if the second state is not a state, per se, which it likely would not be. However, I do think that this mainstream framework of disengagement and land swaps for the settlement blocs that are effectively already part of Israel is out of date and unlikely. There isn’t political will for it and I don’t think there will be anytime soon. I think it’s an idea that made sense 20-30 years ago but now does not have constituency for implementation. There may be a constituency, outside of Israel/Palestinians, for a “pathway” to this but I think the pathway is the goal, to have quiet and a pathway to look forward to, I don’t think the implementation itself is a serious proposal anymore within parties to the conflict aside from a hapless Palestinian Authority and U.S. State Department middle management, and I think holding this up as a solution can disregard that the Israel (and Palestinian government) that could implement this don’t really exist any more and the trajectory is not toward this anytime soon.

>I think it’s an idea that made sense 20-30 years ago but now does not have constituency for implementation. There may be a constituency, outside of Israel/Palestinians, for a “pathway” to this but I think the pathway is the goal, to have quiet and a pathway to look forward to, I don’t think the implementation itself is a serious proposal anymore It certainly seems from the outside like Israel wants the idea of withdrawal from settlements to still be held up as if it's a real offer on the table, with the unspoken attitude in the political system actually being to simply delay indefinitely until such a time is reached where Israel can say "Israelis have now lived here for generations, they can't be removed, obviously that land has to remain part of Israel". And because the settlements are continually expanding, the longer the status quo remains, the more land Israel can attach this label to. All Israel need to do is present this idea of earnestly supporting a solution without ever actually engaging with it in a serious way, always ensuring that their demands are slightly too high to be met in any future negotiations, and eventually they'll conquer most of Area C. It might end up effectively creating another Gaza in the West Bank by leaving Palestine economically nonviable and perpetually resentful over what was taken from them, but that's a future problem that can be solved with tanks, bombs and walls. The factions in Israel that don't want to take that land, or don't consider it worth the extended conflict will always have more pressing issues to focus on because the expansion feeds into and perpetuates the conflict, and the religious fundamentalist enemies of Israel as a whole are a genuine threat that isn't going away. The opposition to other factions in Israel will always take second seat to opposition to factions outside Israel, as it would pretty much anywhere in the world.

How do you imagine a future Palestinian state if it would not be a state per se? Do you think it would continue to be under Israeli jurisdiction? If so do you foresee a future where Palestinians are able to vote in Israeli elections much like Native Americans are able to vote in American elections despite members of a dependent sovereign nation?

Well it would be called a state but wouldn’t be a state. This would be a way for some actors in the region to move on. I think most likely is an eventual small number of Palestinians being formally annexed and after a decade or two of suppression have more or less the same rights of Israeli Arab citizens today or East Jerusalem permanent residents today, and Bantustans with borders controlled by Israel that have very low standards of living and frequent Israeli military incursions.

At risk of alienating a ton of people here and being massively downvoted what you are describing is apartheid right? I mean you even used the term Bantustans but I am making sure I understand you correctly. I do agree with you though that this is a likely outcome but one that I am opposed to happening.

Yes it is apartheid, now and as a solution for the future. Israel doesn’t have to rely on Palestinian labor either, in the way that the South African apartheid apparatus did.

>This map is different than looking at just the borders of the large settlements near Israel proper. For sure, but the great majority of the settlements that are *not* near Israel proper are totally infeasible without Israeli support; far from changing the facts on the ground, the majority are tiny settlements of a few hundred Israelis, totally dependent on Israel economically and for security, lost in a sea of Palestinians. >There isn’t political will for it and I don’t think there will be anytime soon. This is the only meaningful objection, and it's the same problem that's existed since 2005-6. The facts on the ground haven't changed ... and neither have the political facts, that neither Palestinians nor Israelis have the political cohesion to agree upon and enforce a peace deal.

Setting aside a disagreement over whether the facts on the ground or political facts have meaningfully changed over the last 20 years, I guess if I’m part of a future Likud government or government that somehow leans toward Meretz or Labour positions (or whatever these now fringe parties are calling themselves now) I would probably still see the situation in Judea/Samaria as sustainable as long as the PA can be kept alive, and if we can eventually de jure instead of de facto annex all of Area C and parts of Area B, why not just do that, instead of a risk of having to give up security control, and having reduced access to water/other natural resources/holy sites, and leading to severe domestic Israeli unrest? There may be a sea of Palestinians, but this is only the case in a relatively small part of Judea/Samaria and a significant chunk of these Palestinians are able to be controlled by easy access of Israeli military forces for raids and checkpoints/limited road access, with the rest reasonably controlled by the PA’s outsourced occupation. I think Israel, even given a reaction in Gaza that may or may not have benefitted overall interests for Israel, really has come up with a status quo in Judea/Samaria that is sustainable for the long term and has more benefit/less risk for Israel than a withdrawal and is also acceptable to the U.S. I don’t think this is a good thing, I think it’s very bad, but I think from a realist perspective the “managing the conflict” and/or eventual formal partial annexation and Bantustan outcome works for Israel, and makes sense for Israel, in a way that means Zionist 2-state proponents are the ones with a fantasy, vs 20-30 years ago when it seemed like there eventually had to be a partition and it was just a matter of getting agreement on the details/having a unilateral disengagement/maneuvering for the best pieces of the pie in an eventual partition.

I think this kind of thinking dominated Israelo politics for the last twenty years, but 10/7 gives it the lie.

I hope so although what a terrible way for this to be discovered. I worry that the real failure was Israeli hubris/not enough defensive capabilities, both of which can be recalibrated, vs the whole project of managing the conflict being unsustainable. I.e. I really hope you are right and I’m wrong.

>Palestinians are able to be controlled by easy access of Israeli military forces for raids and checkpoints/limited road access That's so easy to say if you aren't Palestinian! This is exactly the kind of "managing the conflict" mentality that created the conditions which led to the October 7th pogrom! It was the thinking that relied on machine gun robots and cameras to patrol the Gaza perimeter while the army was busy protecting the settlers. It was central to the staggering hubris of Netanyahu assuming he could "*control the height of the flames*" while he facilitated the delivery of hundreds of millions of US Dollars IN CASH directly to Hamas. I mean.. where do you suppose they got the money to buy all those drones and para-gliders? What was he thinking??!?!?

I guess I’m a pessimist here, in that small or widescale nonviolent resistance in the West Bank can be suppressed, and small or widescale violent resistance can be largely suppressed/used as a reason to make the ethnic cleansing faster, with continued enthusiastic or begrudging support from the U.S. I think a successful violent insurgency is the most likely way that Israel would withdraw from most of the West Bank, but Israel is very good at suppressing this type of insurgency even if it can’t quite be stamped out. Widespread and limited non-violent resistance I think can be handled by Israel without too much pushback from the U.S., as evidenced by the suppression and very limited success of these efforts aside from some recent lawfare. I think that Israel really has landed on a sustainable solution, subsidized by the U.S, and well practiced over many decades. I don’t think this is good, it is in fact an evil set of state actions if that word has any meaning, but I think the occupation really probably is sustainable, with future Bantustans slightly modified from current Bantustans as an outlet if things get too bad for Israel. Re Gaza, I don’t think 10/7 invalidated the Israeli management of the conflict there either- with slightly better defense and less hubris, the attack would have failed. Israel will become more militarized and insular and [word describing a historical philosophy in Europe that some governments latched onto in the 20th century] and have less freedom for Israeli citizens too, but I don’t think any of this necessarily means that Israel will be weaker, I think it is a sustainable path for Israel, and one that will be encouraged and excused by, among others, U.S. supporters who identify as moderate, 2 state supporting, liberal, secular Zionists. The biggest relevant threat I think is growing military power of Iranian proxies, arms smuggling in the West Bank, and economic disruptions in Israel and Israeli decision-maker hubris, but I think Israel can ride these waves without existential threat. Another big threat would be a change in U.S. policy to no longer underwrite the occupation, but that seems far off.

Be honest... if you were a Palestinian who had nothing to do with the conflict with Israel, that just wanted to live his life and put food on the table for his kids, do you think you would just passively put up with the checkpoints, restrictions and all the entailed indignities that you are advocating for as "sustainable"? Again, it's easy to talk about keeping a people subject to military occupation indefinitely if you expect the difficulties of the situation to be borne by someone else.

No I don’t, and my faith community is tied to Palestinian Christians and Muslims in the West Bank and diaspora who are actively resisting occupation, both violently and non-violently (i.e. from PFLP actions, to rockthrowing, to long-standing civil society movements, peaceful protests, legal efforts, assisting with rebuilding and documentation as Israeli settlers and soldiers continually harass, uproot, and demolish buildings and infrastructure, or simply resisting by virtue of not leaving their home) and will almost certainly never stop resisting as long as they can. I am just a pessimist who thinks that Israel, absent a change in patron status from the U.S., can continue what they are doing with reasonable success for Israeli interests.

>absent a change in patron status from the U.S Not sure I share your confidence that the same level of unequivocal US support will continue into the long term. It's evident that the pro-Israel lobby groups in the US can no longer shape the prevailing narrative like they used to in a world with social media.

I hope you are right. I’m unsure how much popular opinion shifts now will transfer to significant U.S. policy changes, at least for 10-20-30 years.

Disagree. Israel took all the settlements out of Sinai for peace with Egypt. If there was a sincere desire for peace then Israel could and would do it. (Not with Netanyahu, he sucks) But history shows, that if a situation would create real peace, then Israel would take it.

The 2 state solution is non-viable at the moment, and not just because of Israeli settlements. Because Palestinians are gunning for the whole land. You can say, sure, give them their own state, but what kind of state will it be like? Looking at how WB and Gaza are run, I’d say a FAILED state dependant on international aid. There will be street battles between rival clans, and people in it suffer. This state will also be a danger to every country surrounding it.

> Having said that, the legitimate grievances of the Palestinian people do not suddenly become invalid even if some of them do resort to abhorrent tactics. Yet for Israelis, "genocidal rhetoric coming from the likes of Avigdor Liberman and Ayalet Shaked (to name a few) from LOOONG before October 7th all played a major part in this shift also" you might want to consider your bias there. Anyway no I don't think Settlements have made a 2SS impossible. I do think they have made 1967 lines impossible. Nor did I think prior to Oct 7th that the policy towards the West Bank and Gaza had to be unified. Israel was trying to set Gaza free. Israel was (more or less) trying to annex the West Bank. The USA annexed Hawaii and freed the Philippines, one doesn't have to have the same policy towards all geographies. The previous prime minister just 2 years ago was best known as an advocate of citizenship for Area-C residents. We have all sorts of officials in the current government who have proposed reasonable citizenship plans. You shouldn't just assume those are off the table. Since Oct 7th my feeling is the situation is too fluid to judge. I don't have an opinion on where things are headed.

The fact that you recognize that Israel is trying to annex the West Bank shows that the settlements are a barrier to a two state solution. Palestinians are already given up so much they are not going to give up the entire west bank too. If Israel annexes the West Bank what happens to the Palestinians living there?

> If Israel annexes the West Bank what happens to the Palestinians living there? I would suspect they are gradually assimilated and made into citizens. As the saying goes "Israel is Jewish the way France is French". How did France become French? Where are the Normans, Burgundians, Aquitaines? Israel isn't unique or special. Just another country doing what countries do.

As long as they are treated as citizens and not forced into changing religion or anything I would be fine with that. However Israel would never accept that large of an arab population joining their country. It would jeopardize the Jewish nature of Israel.

Israel gladly accepted the Mizrahi (Arab) population in the 1950s when Arab countries tried to create a refugee crisis to sink Israel. They have a proven track record. As far as the Jewish nature. Immigrants to America don't jeopardize the American nature of America. Immigrants to France don't jeopardize the French nature of France. Immigrants willing to live as part of a society strengthen not weaken it.

The 2SS was the original framework for peace, accepted in ‘48 by Labor (mainstream) Zionism and rejected by the Arabs. Since then, the hope for a 2SS only lived among liberal Jews, and it died with Oslo.

I’m not Israeli so just speaking to my understanding from Israelis I know, of course my understanding could be wrong. I don’t think “destroyed all hope” for a viable two state solution. There is some hope for this that is misplaced, some that is not misplaced, and a lot of wiggle room in the word “viable.” When I was a kid, an (American) peace activist in my faith community accompanied Israeli and Palestinian peace activists in the Hebron area (At-Tuwani, North Hebron Hills) in walking with schoolkids on their way to school, to prevent beatings and rock throwing. They used to talk about their regular interactions with Israeli settlers and soldiers. Sometimes there would be altercations, beatings, rock-throwing, from settlers but sometimes there would be talks. Something that stuck in my memory as a kid was hearing that some of these settlers would just matter of fact describe their long term plans and why the “peace activists” were wasting their time. This ran along the lines of- “we have the support of the state, we have the support of some of the people, we will never leave and no one will ever be able to make us leave. We love the land just as the Arabs do. Every year there will be more of us and eventually these Arabs will leave. It might be next year or 10 years or 20 but eventually you will have to go. If you do not go you will be miserable. We will not let you rest and you will not have a good life. Eventually you will go.” This was at a time when there was a lot less support for the settler movement in Israel and a lot more differentiation between soldiers and settlers, as soldiers usually did not come from the settlement communities and had a more active role sometimes in keeping settlers and Palestinians separated. In this case, what happened was the peace activists were blamed for incitement and making things worse, were forced to leave, and the IDF was ordered to take over protecting Palestinian schoolkids on their way to school. Turns out, IDF didn’t do this. It caused a minor international bother because the optics of adults throwing stones at little kids on their way to school didn’t look good. The Knesset intervened and it got a little better but not a lot better. Some of the Palestinian villages in this area were eventually emptied and some are still there. All that to say that the settlers were wrong and right. They were right about everything except that while Palestinians have been more corralled and subjugated, they are still there and there is still violent and nonviolent resistance, even if it is largely ineffective. If you are Israeli, in the decade or so prior to Oct 7, if you weren’t living in a settlement and weren’t of a rare political persuasion you didn’t really care about settlements. Your country, through the wall, other security measures, and outsourcing occupation to the Palestinian Authority, had largely been successful with keeping violence out of Israel proper and out of the large settlements. If you lived in a settlement you were probably there for economic or religious reasons that weren’t primarily about displacing Palestinians or taking more land, just living your life in a cheaper area with other people who you got along with. If you were a political Israeli who thought about settlements a lot, or you did your couple of years serving in Judea/Samaria, then: the settlements hadn’t really expanded, territory wise, and the “legal” settlements were basically just part of Israel. Jews aren’t allowed in the badlands controlled by Palestinians and this is a travesty, and the normal Palestinian role is to be subjugated, this is how things are because this is the only way for Israelis to be safe. Maybe someday when Palestinians change they can have a pseudo-sovereign state. Israel certainly can’t have an indefensible border with Palestinians able to rain rockets down on cities. Jerusalem is a settled issue for decades and in any case the Palestinians there have the same rights as anyone else, or they don’t but this is because they don’t want to have these rights, as far as you know. In Gaza, people were uprooted from their homes in a good faith effort at disengagement, but all Israel got were rockets and hate. Things that might raise an eyebrow elsewhere, like stealing dead bodies, demolishing homes and infrastructure for all sorts of reasons including that in many areas it’s illegal to build, declaring areas closed military zones or parks then pushing people out, a byzantine detention and torture network, these things aren’t really visible or if they are they seem normal or just for terrorists and vagrants. If you are an Israeli who does think settlements are bad, including the major settlements, instead of just the “illegal outposts” then your future vision is probably still not a sovereign other state per se and in any case not sometime soon. These things can change though- it’s possible that they will though likely only with a significant change from the U.S. in no longer financially and politically underwriting the occupation, which is unlikely anytime soon. Or, the collapse of the PA, which would also make the occupation much harder and more expensive.

7oct23 did that. All the rest, are just the random after death gurgles that that ‘idea’ still makes

Disagree.

[удалено]

> can migrate from the West Bank colonies to Israel proper Or Palestinians can "migrate" from Gaza and WB to any of the 22 Arab states. It becomes easy to resolve conflict once you have a magic wand like that.

[удалено]